On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.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_-xa8dda...@mail.gmail.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
reject-unlogged-during-recovery-v3.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
