Re: [HACKERS] Store data in pg_toast for custom type fails (bug?)

2014-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: I believe I understand what's going on here, and it's not quite as exciting as it first appears. The issue is that we are failing to honor the toasting goes only one level deep rule in the specific case of arrays of composite type. So while it's definitely a nasty bug, it affects

Re: [HACKERS] Store data in pg_toast for custom type fails (bug?)

2014-04-22 Thread Honza
On 03/28/2014 07:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: Honza hon...@gmail.com writes: after a months I've found a time to make test-case for this bug, probably: Confirmed that this reproduces a problem on HEAD. Will look into it, thanks! I believe I understand what's going on here, and it's

Re: [HACKERS] Store data in pg_toast for custom type fails (bug?)

2014-04-22 Thread Tom Lane
Honza hon...@gmail.com writes: On 03/28/2014 07:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I believe I understand what's going on here, and it's not quite as exciting as it first appears. The issue is that we are failing to honor the toasting goes only one level deep rule in the specific case of arrays of

[HACKERS] Store data in pg_toast for custom type fails (bug?)

2014-03-28 Thread Honza
Hi, after a months I've found a time to make test-case for this bug, probably: I've got my custom type and a table stores historical data of the main table. The problem occurs at our production servers, version 9.2.6. We've found it after our backups wasn't complete because of selection from

Re: [HACKERS] Store data in pg_toast for custom type fails (bug?)

2014-03-28 Thread Tom Lane
Honza hon...@gmail.com writes: after a months I've found a time to make test-case for this bug, probably: Confirmed that this reproduces a problem on HEAD. Will look into it, thanks! regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Store data in pg_toast for custom type fails (bug?)

2014-03-28 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: Honza hon...@gmail.com writes: after a months I've found a time to make test-case for this bug, probably: Confirmed that this reproduces a problem on HEAD. Will look into it, thanks! I believe I understand what's going on here, and it's not quite as exciting as it first appears.