From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
cc: Nisha Moond <nisha.moond412@gmail.com>, Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>,
        Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
        Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
        Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>,
        "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Large expressions in indexes can't be stored (non-TOASTable)
In-reply-to: <aA_zMYasoUwNrDx1@nathan>
References: <Z_X1jfsMrBBNUx4n@paquier.xyz> <Z_bFDNzcqWxatpL-@nathan>
 <18a111db-9f31-449c-a14b-61779a69f344@app.fastmail.com>
 <Z_mHvqVyGjEZhzl7@nathan> <aAZqiKRhUv7-fSpQ@nathan>
 <CABdArM6j03AAX5A2B9TPCZrY1xr+eFpGpzfdOBAww7mZnniUFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <aAfP_bitjVC1bcNV@nathan> <aAla1fg-1vPeXNck@nathan>
 <1503201.1745444021@sss.pgh.pa.us> <aAlfU06XTChyIGBD@nathan>
 <aA_zMYasoUwNrDx1@nathan>
Comments: In-reply-to Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:29:21 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <905634.1745876108.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 17:35:08 -0400
Message-ID: <905635.1745876108@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/905635.1745876108%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 04:44:51PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 05:33:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I don't see any comments in this patch that capture the real
>>> reason for removing pg_replication_origin's TOAST table,
>>> namely (IIUC) that we'd like to be able to access that catalog
>>> without a snapshot.

> I updated the comment atop the check in the misc_sanity test for system
> tables with varlena columns but no toast table.  If you were to reintroduce
> pg_replication_origin's toast table, you'd have to at least fix the
> expected output for this test, so the comment theoretically has a higher
> chance of being seen.

Possibly better idea: can we add something like
Assert(!OidIsValid(reltoastrelid)) in the code that is making this
assumption?

			regards, tom lane