Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?
Date
Msg-id 4444.957497548@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?  (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>)
Responses Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?  (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>)
Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
RE: pg_group_name_index corrupt?  ("Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
>> I griped about that a week or so ago, but no one seems to have picked up
>> on it.  Do you want to consider that a "must fix" problem as well?
>> I think it's a pretty minor fix, but considering how late we are in the
>> cycle...

> considering where the problem is, I think that if it can be safely done,
> please do it ...

Done and done.  I also realized that pg_upgrade had another nasty bug
in it: the VACUUMs were not necessarily executed as superuser, but as
whichever user happened to own the item dumped last by pg_dump in each
database.  That would result in VACUUM skipping over tables it thought
it didn't have permission to vacuum --- like, say, all the system
tables.  Perhaps this explains the failures that some people have
reported.

Another day, another bug swatted ...
        regards, tom lane

PS: when you announce RC5, don't forget to mention the required initdb
;-)


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: The Hermit Hacker
Date:
Subject: related to the 'pg_group' issue?
Next
From: Don Baccus
Date:
Subject: Re: ``..Advice For New Immigrants...