* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > * Andrew Dunstan (andrew@dunslane.net) wrote:
> >> On 06/04/2014 10:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> I just chanced to notice that if someone were to change the value for
> >>> LOBLKSIZE and recompile, there'd be nothing to stop him from starting
> >>> that postmaster against an existing database, even though it would
> >>> completely misinterpret and mangle any data in pg_largeobject.
>
> > Then again, I've never heard of a field complaint regarding this, so
> > pehraps it's not worth it.
>
> I've not heard one either, but there was just somebody asking in
> pgsql-general about changing LOBLKSIZE, so he's going to be at risk.
> That's not a big enough sample size to make me panic about getting a
> hasty fix into 9.4, but I do think we should fix this going forward.
Agreed.
Thanks, Stephen
