I wrote:
> I have no more time to work on this, but I think it needs to be fixed, and
> I definitely think we had better put in test coverage when we do fix it.

Actually, there is a really easy fix we could put in, which is to decide
that optionally_create_toast_tables() is useless and get rid of it.

Point 1: if a table did not have a TOAST table in the old database,
any decision that it needs one in the new database must be a very
close-to-the-edge situation; certainly the 9.2 change we had in this area
was a matter of rounding things off differently.  needs_toast_table()'s
threshold for max tuple length is only a quarter page, so there's a huge
amount of daylight between where we'd choose to create a toast table and
where users would actually see failures from not having one.  It's pretty
hard to believe that cross-version differences in the do-we-need-a-toast-
table heuristic would exceed that.

Point 2: the current code is broken, and will cause a pg_upgrade failure
if the situation of concern occurs.  That's certainly much worse than
not adding a marginally-useful toast table.

Point 3: in view of point 2, the lack of field complaints says that this
situation doesn't actually happen in the field.

Barring complaints, I'll fix this bug by removing that code altogether.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to