Re: [DOCS] pg_total_relation_size() and CHECKPOINT

From: "Zubkovsky, Sergey" <Sergey(dot)Zubkovsky(at)transas(dot)com>
To: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Subject: Re: [DOCS] pg_total_relation_size() and CHECKPOINT
Date: 2008-03-26 14:44:16
Message-ID: 528853D3C5ED2C4AA8990B504BA7FB850106DF29@sol.transas.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers


Can anybody tell me how filesystem space is allocated and point me to
the sources if it's possible?
I have some experience with programming for Windows and I'll try to
investigate this problem.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:56 PM
To: Alvaro Herrera
Cc: Tom Lane; Gregory Stark; Zubkovsky, Sergey;
pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org; Magnus Hagander
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [DOCS] pg_total_relation_size() and CHECKPOINT

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
>> The real question here is whether Windows' stat() is telling the
truth
>> about how much filesystem space has actually been allocated to a
file.
>> It seems entirely possible that it's not; but if it is, then I think
we
>> have a problem.
>>
>
> Has this been examined by a Windows hacker?
>
>

If someone can suggest a test program I'll be happy to run it.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-03-26 15:41:32 Re: [DOCS] pg_total_relation_size() and CHECKPOINT
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2008-03-26 14:10:27 Re: Full Text Search examples patch

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Xiao Meng 2008-03-26 14:55:44 [GSoC] Need for advice on improving hash index performance
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2008-03-26 14:43:49 Re: Array behavior oddities