Re: Unlogged tables cannot be truncated twice
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Unlogged tables cannot be truncated twice |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BANLkTi=mZFyiH_MzqBXyg+O=31n213Fz2A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Unlogged tables cannot be truncated twice (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Unlogged tables cannot be truncated twice
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
2011/5/31 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>: > On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 03:27:22 Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Excerpts from Andres Freund's message of lun may 30 20:47:49 -0400 2011: >> > On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 02:35:58 AM Andres Freund wrote: >> > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 02:14:00 AM Andres Freund wrote: >> > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 01:56:05 AM C=E9dric Villemain wrote: >> > > > > I remove my own explanations as we conclude on the same thing. >> > > > > Attached is the fix by adding a (!reindex) =A0in the index.c if(= ). >> > > > >> > > > Thats imo wrong because it will break a plain REINDEX? >> > > >> > > > I think one possible correct fix would be the attached: >> > > My version was wrong as well because it =A0did not observe >> > > RelationTruncate's nblocks argument. That function is used to >> > > "shorten" the relation in vacuum. So dropping the init fork there is >> > > not a good idea. >> > > >> > > So I think it is the simpler version of simply checking the existance >> > > of the fork before creating is ok. >> >> Hmm, I wonder if what we should be doing here is observe isreindex in >> index_build to avoid creating the init fork. =A0Doing smgr access at that >> level seems wrong. > isreindex doesn't contain the necessary informormation as its set doing a > REINDEX even though a new relfilenode is created and thus the fork needs = to be > created. > > It doesn't seem terribly clean do do the !smgrexists(), I aggree with you > there. On the other hand we are calling smgrcreate() two lines down anywa= y. I > personally don't realy like the placement of that piece of code very much. > Doing it in index_build seems to be the wrong place. I don't think there > really is a good place for it right now. I'm open to suggestions on how to rearrange this, but I think for right now the approach you proposed upthread (add a smgrexists() test) is probably the simplest way to fix this. --=20 Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: