> I don't see why you'd get that error, if you re-add a column (with a
> different type), as I did above? Obviously the "replacement" column
> addition would need to be committed.
>
Here's my test case:
CREATE TABLE t3(i INTEGER);
BEGIN;
ALTER TABLE t3 ADD COLUMN blarg INT;
INSERT INTO t3(bla
On 2018-10-17 17:02:20 -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> > There's plenty ways it can go horribly wrong. Let's start with something
> > simple:
> >
> > BEGIN;
> > ALTER TABLE ... ADD COLUMN blarg INT;
> > INSERT ... (blag) VALUES (132467890);
> > ROLLBACK;
> >
> > ALTER TABLE ... ADD COLUMN blarg TEXT;
> There's plenty ways it can go horribly wrong. Let's start with something
> simple:
>
> BEGIN;
> ALTER TABLE ... ADD COLUMN blarg INT;
> INSERT ... (blag) VALUES (132467890);
> ROLLBACK;
>
> ALTER TABLE ... ADD COLUMN blarg TEXT;
>
> If you now read the table with your function you'll see a dead r
Hi,
On 2018-10-17 13:14:17 -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> > It's far from only toast that could be problematic here.
> >
>
> Do you have an example in mind? Wouldn’t the tuples have to be corrupted in
> some way to have problems with being interpreted as a datum? Or are you
> thinking very old tup
> It's far from only toast that could be problematic here.
>
Do you have an example in mind? Wouldn’t the tuples have to be corrupted in
some way to have problems with being interpreted as a datum? Or are you
thinking very old tuples with a radically different structure to be causing
the problem?
Hi,
On 2018-10-17 13:04:33 -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> 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
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()
On 2018-10-17 12:36:54 -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> >
> >
> > I did compleatly got the question... The question is it safe to split
> > tuple
> > record into array of raw bytea? It is quite safe from my point of view.
> > We
> > use only data that is inside the tuple, and info from pg_catalog that
В письме от 17 октября 2018 12:36:54 пользователь James Coleman написал:
> > I did compleatly got the question... The question is it safe to split
> > tuple
> > record into array of raw bytea? It is quite safe from my point of view.
> > We
> > use only data that is inside the tuple, and info from p
>
>
> I did compleatly got the question... The question is it safe to split
> tuple
> record into array of raw bytea? It is quite safe from my point of view.
> We
> use only data that is inside the tuple, and info from pg_catalog that
> describes the tuple structure. So we are not affected if for e
В письме от 16 октября 2018 19:17:20 пользователь Andres Freund написал:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-10-16 22:05:28 -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> > > I don't think it's entirely safe to do so for invisible rows. The toast
> > > references could be reused, constraints be violated, etc. So while I
> > > cou
Hi,
On 2018-10-16 22:05:28 -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> > I don't think it's entirely safe to do so for invisible rows. The toast
> > references could be reused, constraints be violated, etc. So while I
> > could have used this several times before, it's also very likely a good
> > way to cause
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:39 PM James Coleman wrote:
> Summary:
> The new function tuple_data_record() parallels the existing
> tuple_data_split() function, but instead of returning a bytea array of raw
> attribute heap values, it returns a row type of the relation being examined.
I've been doi
> I don't think it's entirely safe to do so for invisible rows. The toast
> references could be reused, constraints be violated, etc. So while I
> could have used this several times before, it's also very likely a good
> way to cause trouble. It'd probably be ok to just fetch the binary
> value
Hi,
On 2018-10-16 21:39:02 -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> Background:
> In my usage of pageinspect for debugging or other purposes I often find it
> frustrating that I don't have a way to easily view a heap page's tuple data
> as actual records rather than binary data. After encountering this again
15 matches
Mail list logo
