| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remaining beta blockers |
| Date: | 2013-04-30 02:50:34 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYgiT7i0EgqdjEFN=cjj=Yk2Zj32Si3guqvuaLaC7OfNA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Kevin Grittner (kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com) wrote:
>> If they modified the heap files that way while the server was
>> running, the results would be somewhat unpredictable. If they did
>> it while the server was stopped, starting the server and attempting
>> to access the matview would generate:
>
> Right, the point being that they could (ab)use it as a flag to trigger
> something to happen. I'd also be worried about failure cases where
> files appear to be zero-length.
If you assume that people are going to modify files while the backend
is running, nothing we do anywhere is safe.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-04-30 03:37:43 | Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0 |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-04-30 02:02:13 | pgsql: Revert "pg_ctl: Add idempotent option" |