On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 3:05 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 01:52:28PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Given that users could manually update the catalog, we have to be able
> > to tolerate bad data in the catalogs without the world ending. If that
> > code has to exist anyway, then it's not mandatory to cap. On the other
> > hand, there's no great virtue in refusing to correct data that we know
> > to be wrong. Unless there is some other consideration which makes one
> > way better than the other, this feels like author's choice.
>
> Maybe the most conservative choice is to simply follow the example of
> surrounding code. If it's careful to cap relallvisible to relpages, also
> have it cap relallfrozen. If not, don't. *shrug*
Agreed. I've done this in attached v10. I handle relallfrozen values >
relpages in the second patch in the set when using the relallfrozen
value, so I think we are all good.
> In any case, I don't want to hold up this patch on this relatively minor
> point. This seems like something we could pretty easily change in the
> future if needed.
Yes, so one thing you haven't said yet is if you are +1 on going
forward with these patches in general.
As for the code, I'm not 100% convinced I've got all the stats
import/export bits perfect (those are changing under my feet right now
anyway).
- Melanie
