Re: TOAST versus VACUUM, or "missing chunk number 0 for toast value" identified - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: TOAST versus VACUUM, or "missing chunk number 0 for toast value" identified
Date
Msg-id 29101.1319832714@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: TOAST versus VACUUM, or "missing chunk number 0 for toast value" identified  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: TOAST versus VACUUM, or "missing chunk number 0 for toast value" identified  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
Re: TOAST versus VACUUM, or "missing chunk number 0 for toast value" identified  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of vie oct 28 16:47:13 -0300 2011:
>> BTW we had previous discussions about dropping pg_database's toast
>> table.  Maybe this is a good time to do it, even if there's no risk of
>> this bug (or the hypothetical circularity detoasting problem) showing up
>> there.

No objection from me.

> Oh, something unrelated I just remembered: we have
> pg_database.datlastsysoid which seems unused.  Perhaps we should remove
> that column for cleanliness.

I have a vague recollection that some client-side code uses this to
figure out what's the dividing line between user and system OIDs.
pg_dump used to need to know that number, and it can still be useful
with casts and other things that are hard to tell whether they're built-in.
While in principle people could use FirstNormalObjectId instead, that
could come back to bite us if we ever have to increase that constant
in future releases.  I'm inclined to leave this one alone.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: So where are we on the open commitfest?
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: fstat vs. lseek