| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bugs in TOAST handling, OID assignment and redo recovery |
| Date: | 2018-04-11 14:50:47 |
| Message-ID: | 16666.1523458247@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Or may be we simply err on the side of caution and scan the toast table
> with SnapshotAny while looking for a duplicate? That might prevent us from
> reusing an OID for a known-dead tuple, but should save us a second index
> scan and still work.
+1. We really don't want to expend two indexscans on this.
I was worried about changing the signature of GetNewOidWithIndex in
a back-patched fix, but after looking around I think that's probably
safe. External callers really shouldn't be using anything lower-level
than GetNewOid.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-11 14:53:28 | Re: Creation of wiki page for open items of v11 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-11 14:41:38 | Re: lazy detoasting |