Horton

Re: Postmaster holding unlinked files for pg_largeobject table

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Kevin Grittner <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov>, alexk <alexk@commandprompt.com>, Alexander Shulgin <ash@commandprompt.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-06-09T19:02:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Reset reindex-in-progress state before reverifying an exclusion constraint.

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> My thought is that it needs some beta testing. Perhaps it'd be sane to
>> push it into beta2 now, and then back-patch sometime after 9.1 final,
>> if no problems pop up.

> I think it'd be sensible to back-patch it.  I'm not sure whether now
> or later.  It's a bug fix that is biting real users in the field, so
> it seems like we ought to do something about it.

I don't deny it's a bug fix; I'm just dubious about the risk-reward
ratio.  As to risk: the patch isn't trivial (notice Alvaro didn't get it
right the first time).  As to reward: it's been like that since forever,
so if the problem were really serious, we'd have identified it before.

Letting it age a bit during beta would do a lot to damp down the risk
side of the equation.

			regards, tom lane