Horton

Re: Postmaster holding unlinked files for pg_largeobject table

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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: 2011-06-09T19:03:26Z
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.

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.

OK by me.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company