Greg Wooledge ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I recreated the tables without large objects on Friday. (I created two
> tables to hold 4000-byte chunks and keep them straight, and I wrote
> frontend perl code which chops the files into pieces or reconstructs
> them. I'm not quite done with it -- need to get the sequencing
> straight when reconstructing -- but that shouldn't take long.)
While I was finishing this up, etc., I discovered a potential infinite
loop in the perl front-end code (I used the wrong variable name in one
place). I'm fairly sure this infinite loop got triggered at least
once, which partially invalidates my claims of a PostgreSQL 6.4.2 bug.
However, note that this infinite loop was not present while I was still
using the large objects. (Though I suppose there may have been a
different bug in my code; I didn't examine every single byte of the
code in great detail.) So I'm still skeptical about whether PostgreSQL
works properly with large objects; but the large object stuff is ugly
in so many other ways that I don't want to go back there anyway.
So now I've got no large objects and no unique indices; we'll see how
it holds up over the next few days.... If I get brave, I may put the
unique indices back in and see whether this introduces any
instability.
I'm sorry if I caused any large-scale panics or states of emergency. :-(
