Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-02-20 13:07:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I can easily think of problems that will ensue if we try to support that
>> case, because right now the toast mechanisms assume that OOL toasted
>> values can only be referenced from the associated table.
> What problem are you seeing with treating the toasted value to be from
> pg_attribute? I'm only drinking my first coffee just now, so I might be
> missing something...
Locking/vacuuming is exactly what I'm worried about. Right now, a
transaction cannot reference a toast value without holding at least
AccessShare on the parent table. That would not be true of OOL fast
defaults that are living in pg_attribute's toast table (if it had one).
If you think this isn't potentially problematic, see the problems that
forced us into hacks like 08e261cbc.
I guess the fix equivalent to 08e261cbc would be to require any toasted
fast-default value to be detoasted into line whenever it's copied into
a tupledesc, rather than possibly being fetched later.
> Now we certainly would need to make sure that the corresponding
> pg_attribute row containing the default value doesn't go away too early,
> but that shouldn't be much of a problem given that we never remove
> them. I wondered for a second if there's problematic cases where the
> default value is referenced by an index, and then the default-adding
> transaction rolls back. But I can't construct anything realistically
> problematic.
Oooh ... but no, because we don't allow toasted values to be copied into
indexes, for (I think) exactly this reason. See index_form_tuple.
regards, tom lane
