Re: WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEepm=1nsja-tr1v6GWNNHPpCLiuodV3CxNf5vqXYxhekJpUdQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> >> Is there a risk that this ends up running afoul of filename length >> limits on some platforms? > > Hmm. I didn't think so. Do we have a project guideline on maximum > path lengths based on some kind of survey? There are various limits > involved (filesystem and OS per-path-component limits, total limits, > and the confusing PATH_MAX, MAX_PATH etc macros), but I was under the > impression that these numbers were always at least 255. This scheme > seems capable of producing ~50 bytes in the final component > (admittedly more if int is 64 bits), and then nowhere near enough to > reach a limit of that order in the earlier components. Err, plus prefix. Still seems unlikely to be too long. >> I'm a bit unhappy with the partition terminology around this. It's >> getting a bit confusing. We have partitions, participants and >> segements. Most of them could be understood for something entirely >> different than the meaning you have here... > > Ok. Let me try to explain and defend them and see if we can come up > with something better. > > 1. Segments are what buffile.c already calls the individual > capped-at-1GB files that it manages. They are an implementation > detail that is not part of buffile.c's user interface. There seems to > be no reason to change that. After reading your next email I realised this is not quite true: BufFileTell and BufFileSeek expose the existence of segments. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: