Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I am unsure if I should backpatch to 8.1: the code in cluster.c has
> > changed, and while it is relatively easy to modify the patch, this is a
> > rare bug and nobody has reported it in CLUSTER (not many people clusters
> > temp tabl
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am unsure if I should backpatch to 8.1: the code in cluster.c has
> changed, and while it is relatively easy to modify the patch, this is a
> rare bug and nobody has reported it in CLUSTER (not many people clusters
> temp tables, it seems). Should I p
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting adding a new function,
> > similar to pg_class_ownercheck, which additionally checks for temp-ness?
>
> No, I was just suggesting adding the check for temp-ness in cluster()
> and cluster_re
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting adding a new function,
> similar to pg_class_ownercheck, which additionally checks for temp-ness?
No, I was just suggesting adding the check for temp-ness in cluster()
and cluster_rel() where we do pg_class_own
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Yeah, an extra fetch of the pg_class row doesn't seem all that nice.
> >> I think you'd want to check it in approximately the same two places
> >> where pg_class_ownercheck() is applied (one for the 1-xact and one
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, an extra fetch of the pg_class row doesn't seem all that nice.
>> I think you'd want to check it in approximately the same two places
>> where pg_class_ownercheck() is applied (one for the 1-xact and one for
>> the multi-xact pat
Tom Lane wrote:
> > I examined cluster.c and it does seem to be missing a check too. I'm
> > not sure where to add one though; the best choice would be the place
> > where the list of rels is built, but that scans only pg_index, so it
> > doesn't have access to the namespace of each rel. So one
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, there is not any filter in ReindexDatabase() to exclude temp tables
>> of other backends, but it sure seems like there needs to be. CLUSTER
>> might have the same issue. I think we fixed this in VACUUM long ago,
>> but we need t
Tom Lane wrote:
> "dx k9" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [ stuck reindex ]
> > It turns out it was a temporary database and temporary table, that just
> > wasn't there maybe it thought it was there from some type of snapshot then
> > the next minute it was gone.
>
> Hmm, there is not any filter
"dx k9" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ stuck reindex ]
> It turns out it was a temporary database and temporary table, that just
> wasn't there maybe it thought it was there from some type of snapshot then
> the next minute it was gone.
Hmm, there is not any filter in ReindexDatabase() to exclu
10 matches
Mail list logo
