On Friday, December 07, 2012 7:43 PM Muhammad Usama wrote:
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com<mailto:amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>> wrote:
>>I think we should expect provided path to be relative to current directory
>> or may consider it to be relative to either one of Data or CWD.
>>Because normally we expect path to be relative to CWD if some program is
>> asking for path in command line.
> Please find the attached patch to make the path relative to CWD and check if the path is under data directory.
> Works good now.
Thank you for verification.
> Although I am thinking why are you disallowing the absolute path of file. Any particular reason?
The reason to disallow absolute path is that, we need to test on multiple platforms and to keep the scope little less.
I thought we can allow absolute paths in future.
> I also had a similar point made by Alvaro to allow all the segments of the relation for a given relation file name, or add another option do do the same. But if everybody is fine with leaving it for the future, I do > not have any further concerns with the patch. It is good from my side.
In my opinion we can extend the utility in future for both the below points suggested:
1. allow absolute paths in file path
2. allow to get max lsn for relation segments.
If you are also okay, then we can proceed and let Committer also share his opinion.
Thank you for reviewing the patch.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-12-08 04:14:47|
|Subject: Re: Review: Patch to compute Max LSN of Data Pages|
|Previous:||From: Jeff Janes||Date: 2012-12-08 02:08:08|
|Subject: Re: Serious problem: media recovery fails after system or