| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remaining beta blockers |
| Date: | 2013-04-29 20:26:27 |
| Message-ID: | 1367267187.42164.YahooMailNeo@web162903.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> what happens when an admin figures out that they can 'hack' the
> system to do what they want by truncating that file?
If they modified the heap files that way while the server was
running, the results would be somewhat unpredictable. If they did
it while the server was stopped, starting the server and attempting
to access the matview would generate:
ERROR: materialized view "matview_name" has not been populated
HINT: Use the REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW command.
> Or we end up wanting to have that file be non-zero and considered
> 'empty' later, but we don't want pg_upgrade running around
> touching all of the existing files out there?
I didn't follow this one; could you restate it, please?
--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2013-04-29 20:33:41 | Re: Proposal to add --single-row to psql |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2013-04-29 20:24:17 | Re: Analyzing bug 8049 |