Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 10:33 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> At this point I no longer have any faith in the approach of "suppress
>> DETAIL only where we've actually been burnt". I think we should
>> either go ahead and suppress DETAIL in all four places, or bite the
>> bullet and change the DROP ROLE code as I sketched upthread.
> I would like to suppress the dependency.sql stability issue right
> away. I can also suppress the rowsecurity.out output in the same
> commit. I want to fix the problem on the buildfarm first, unless your
> well-principled approach won't take very long. Which seems unlikely.
I think I can probably get that done today, but if you don't want to
wait, feel free to put in the detail-suppression for now.
>> When I was looking at this on Friday, I thought it wouldn't be that
>> hard to make the results stable, at least up to whatever cutoff we
>> want to set on how many objects to sort. But per previous discussion,
>> maybe we don't need an explicit limit? The stringinfo describing the
>> objects is going to consume a good bit more memory than an ObjectAddress
>> array in any case, so if we're not going to sweat about OOM for the
>> message then I'm not sure we need to be paranoid about the sort memory.
> I agree that it isn't worth worrying about an OOM for the sort here.
If we aren't going to worry about that then I think it probably becomes
a pretty simple change. Will look in a little bit.
regards, tom lane
