Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 7.0 a success - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 7.0 a success
Date
Msg-id 21264.959230444@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 7.0 a success  (Denis Perchine <dyp@perchine.com>)
Responses Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 7.0 a success  (Denis Perchine <dyp@perchine.com>)
List pgsql-general
Denis Perchine <dyp@perchine.com> writes:
>> example?  some way to recreate for debugging?

> 1. When you have created temp table and just killed frontend. Backend
> realize that connection is broken and somehow did not remove the table
> from pg_class. Then it will exists on the disk and in pg_class.

Hmm.  I said to myself "no way", and did "create temp table foo ..."
followed by killing psql from another window.  By golly, the pg_temp
file was still there, and it was still listed in pg_class, just as you
said.  But then I haven't been able to repeat it in quite a few tries.
So there's a bug there, but it's not too easy to reproduce.  Do you
have any idea what contributing conditions might be involved?

> 2. When you do operations with large objects (they are treated as
> relations also) and you do rollback or again connect broken. Or you do
> lots of lo_unlink and rollback or just broke connection.

lo_unlink is not safe to rollback, any more than a plain drop table is.
This is a known deficiency and probably will be for a while.  In the
meantime the standard advice is "don't do that".

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 7.0 a success
Next
From: Denis Perchine
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 7.0 a success