"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The question from the previous mail still stands: would anybody's
>> applications be broken if we change the MVCC behavior of large objects?
> Could you provide an instance where it might? I had always assumed (I
> know, never assume) that large ob
Nope. I'm feeling a strong urge to go fix it for 8.1 though.
The question from the previous mail still stands: would anybody's
applications be broken if we change the MVCC behavior of large objects?
Could you provide an instance where it might? I had always assumed (I
know, never assume) th
Ron Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We've been getting errors similar to the following (the specific large
> object that is "missing" is different every time) during our nightly
> pg_dump:
>
> pg_dump: dumpBlobs(): could not open large object: ERROR:
> inv_open: large object 48217896 not fo
> We've been getting errors similar to the following (the specific large
> object that is "missing" is different every time) during our nightly
> pg_dump:
>
> pg_dump: dumpBlobs(): could not open large object: ERROR:
> inv_open: large
> object 48217896 not found
>
After doing a bunch of testin
