Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.5 items
От | The Hermit Hacker |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.5 items |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.BSF.4.05.9906071114110.413-100000@thelab.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.5 items (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.5 items
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > What is it on the backend that causes some backend to think there is > > > another segment. Does it just go off the end of the max segment size > > > and try to open another, or do we store the number of segments > > > somewhere. I thought it was the former in sgml() area. I honestly don't > > > care if the segment files stay around if that is going to be a reliable > > > solution. > > > > Other then the inode being used, what is wrong with a zero-length segment > > file? > > Nothing is wrong with it. I just thought it would be more reliable to > unlink it, but now am considering I was wrong. Just a thought, but if you left it zero length, the dba could use it as a means for estimating disk space requirements? :) buff.0 buff.1 is zero lenght, but buff.2 isn't, we know that we've filled 2x1gig buffers plus a little bit, so can allocate space accordingly? :) I'm groping here, help me out ... :) Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: