Re: [PATCHES] Assertion failure with small block sizes

2007-10-15 Thread Tom Lane
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If I push the TOAST_TUPLES_PER_PAGE up to 16 I get another failure on the same line from trying to toast a sequence. If I add RELKIND_SEQUENCE to the assertion then it passes all regression tests even if I push TOAST_TUPLES_PER_PAGE up to 1024 -- ie, try

Re: [PATCHES] Assertion failure with small block sizes

2007-10-15 Thread Gregory Stark
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If I push the TOAST_TUPLES_PER_PAGE up to 16 I get another failure on the same line from trying to toast a sequence. If I add RELKIND_SEQUENCE to the assertion then it passes all regression tests even if I push

Re: [PATCHES] Assertion failure with small block sizes

2007-10-15 Thread Tom Lane
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmm. I'm inclined to reverse the tests (there are 3 not just 1) in heapam.c, so that it explicitly tries to toast only in plain tables, rather than adding more exclusion cases. Thoughts? Well RELKIND_UNCATALOGED can

Re: [PATCHES] Assertion failure with small block sizes

2007-10-14 Thread Tom Lane
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Testing Postgres with a small block size runs into an assertion failure when it tries to toast a pg_proc tuple during initdb. I think the assertion is just wrong and RELKIND_UNCATALOGUED is valid here. Uh, what makes you think the assertion is the only

Re: [PATCHES] Assertion failure with small block sizes

2007-10-14 Thread Gregory Stark
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Testing Postgres with a small block size runs into an assertion failure when it tries to toast a pg_proc tuple during initdb. I think the assertion is just wrong and RELKIND_UNCATALOGUED is valid here. Uh, what