From: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Truncation of mapped catalogs (whether local or shared) leads to server crash |
Date: | 2024-06-18 15:25:08 |
Message-ID: | CAE9k0P=UTRM2cZ0-4hE=RqoFTerkX3KqjfuX99YWUkO-xkN35A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 8:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 7:50 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> I think the assertion you noticed is there because the code path gets
> >> traversed during REINDEX, which is an operation we do support on
> >> system catalogs. I have zero interest in making truncate work
> >> on them.
>
> > I agree with you on that point. How about considering a complete
> > restriction instead?
>
> You already broke the safety seal by enabling allow_system_table_mods.
> Perhaps the documentation of that is not scary enough?
>
> Allows modification of the structure of system tables as well as
> certain other risky actions on system tables. This is otherwise not
> allowed even for superusers. Ill-advised use of this setting can
> cause irretrievable data loss or seriously corrupt the database
> system.
>
I was actually referring to just the truncation part here, not any DML
operations, as I've observed their usage in certain extensions.
However, truncation is just used for pg_largeobject and that too only
during pg_upgrade, so for other catalogs truncation can be avoided.
But that is just my perspective; if it's not essential, we can
possibly stop this discussion here.
Thank you to everyone for sharing your valuable insights.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-06-18 15:47:58 | Re: Maybe don't process multi xmax in FreezeMultiXactId() if it is already marked as invalid? |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2024-06-18 15:23:49 | Re: Inval reliability, especially for inplace updates |