| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value |
| Date: | 2014-01-02 21:05:09 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZaqqzRiri9A8M1UtMdpruWrpk1FGzrkEA5SJ3Um4v5DQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I was wondering if we could somehow arrange to not
>> release the subtransaction's AccessShareLock on the table, as long as it
>> was protecting toasted references someplace.
>
> Sounds fairly ugly...
I think the only principled fixes are to either retain the lock or
forcibly detoast before releasing it. The main problem I see with
retaining the lock is that you'd need a way of finding out the
relation OIDs of all toast pointers you might later decide to expand.
I don't have an amazingly good idea about how to figure that out.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-02 21:15:46 | Re: ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-01-02 21:01:10 | Re: CLUSTER FREEZE |