| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "mac_man2005(at)hotmail(dot)it" <mac_man2005(at)hotmail(dot)it> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: About tapes |
| Date: | 2010-06-20 21:20:18 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinEkolhYvV2jE2FSS6abmHP7o5Bv5VOuoLIRXRL@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 4:57 AM, mac_man2005(at)hotmail(dot)it
<mac_man2005(at)hotmail(dot)it> wrote:
> Tom, Robert,
> thank you.
>
> Now it is clearer how space on tapes is recycled.
>
> I tried to follow Robert's example but storing one tape per separate file.
> Read in the first block of each run (hosted by separate tapes and so by
> separate files) and output them into extra storage, wherever this extra
> storage is.
> Again, those first input blocks are now garbage: is it correct?
Yes.
> In this case, what happens when trying to recycle those garbage blocks by
> hosting the result of merging the second block of each run?
You just overwrite them with the new data.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-20 21:32:12 | Re: beta3 & the open items list |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-20 21:19:28 | Re: beta3 & the open items list |