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_UN
"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 i
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
"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.
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 on
