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: 2011-06-09T18:49:23Z
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 2:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié jun 08 14:28:02 -0400 2011:
>>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>>>> This customer is running on 8.4 so I started from there; should I
>>>> backpatch this to 8.2, or not at all?
>
>>> I'm not excited about back-patching it...
>
>> Bummer.
>
> Well, of course mine is only one opinion; anybody else feel this *is*
> worth risking a back-patch for?
>
> 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.

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