Re: pageinspect: add tuple_data_record()

From: James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pageinspect: add tuple_data_record()
Date: 2018-10-17 17:04:33
Message-ID: CAAaqYe9ziEe=axAqwYS9ahV8io8fjx3yQThbfCMsnRRSCCAzWA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Indeed. But I do think your approach - which means that the binary data is
> actually interpreded as a datum of a specific type, drastically
> increases the risk.
>
>
Agreed.

As I noted earlier, I don't at all think deTOASTing is a must for this
function to be
valuable, just as tuple_data_split() is also valuable without deTOASTINGing.

I believe "best effort" is very reasonable in the case of a what is an
investigatory
method to begin with.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2018-10-17 17:05:36 Re: pageinspect: add tuple_data_record()
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-10-17 16:54:13 Re: pageinspect: add tuple_data_record()