Re: BUG #6041: Unlogged table was created bad in slave node

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Emanuel <postgres(dot)arg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #6041: Unlogged table was created bad in slave node
Date: 2011-06-07 19:24:53
Message-ID: BANLkTikMWGdLgRAL+fCBKGaNs85eQo2K+w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Patch along these lines attached.
>>
>> Frankly, I find this quite ugly, and much prefer the general approach of
>> your previous patch in <BANLkTim433vF5HWjbJ0FSWm_-xA8DDaGNg(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>.
>>
>> However, I don't like where you put the execution-time test there.  I'd
>> put it in ExecOpenScanRelation instead, so that it covers both seqscan
>> and indexscan accesses.
>
> Ah, OK.  I was wondering if there was a better place.  I'll do it that
> way, then.

I found a few other holes in my previous patch as well. I think this
plugs them all, but it's hard to be sure there aren't any other calls
to RelationGetNumberOfBlocks() that could bomb out.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Attachment Content-Type Size
reject-unlogged-during-recovery-v3.patch application/octet-stream 3.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-06-07 19:53:59 Re: BUG #6041: Unlogged table was created bad in slave node
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-06-07 19:05:13 Re: BUG #6050: Dump and restore of view after a schema change: can't restore the view

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2011-06-07 19:31:48 Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch
Previous Message Greg Stark 2011-06-07 19:24:07 Re: heap vacuum & cleanup locks