* 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. > > > >I think there ought to be a guard for that, for exactly the same reasons > >that we check TOAST_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE: correct interpretation of on-disk > >data requires that this value match the original database configuration. > > > >Obviously it's too late to do anything about this in existing branches, > >but I propose to add a field to pg_control after we branch off 9.4. > > > > > > If we did an initdb-requiring change for 9.4 could we piggy-back > this onto it?
I was thinking more-or-less the same thing...
Then again, I've never heard of a field complaint regarding this, so
pehraps it's not worth it.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
