* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > * Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote: > >> On 06/04/2014 10:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> I just chanced to notice that if someone were to change the value for > >>> LOBLKSIZE and recompile, there'd be nothing to stop him from starting > >>> that postmaster against an existing database, even though it would > >>> completely misinterpret and mangle any data in pg_largeobject. > > > Then again, I've never heard of a field complaint regarding this, so > > pehraps it's not worth it. > > I've not heard one either, but there was just somebody asking in > pgsql-general about changing LOBLKSIZE, so he's going to be at risk. > That's not a big enough sample size to make me panic about getting a > hasty fix into 9.4, but I do think we should fix this going forward.
Agreed.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
