On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 10:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 10:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> the assumption that the file is less than one disk block,
> >> it should be just as atomic as pg_control updates are.
> > IIRC there were 173 relations affected by this. 4 bytes each we would
> > have more than 512 bytes.
> Where in the world did you get that number?
> There are currently 29 shared relations (counting indexes), and 13
> nailed local relations, which would go into a different map file.
> I'm not sure if the set of local catalogs requiring the map treatment
> is exactly the same as what's presently nailed, but that's probably
> a good approximation.
I was suggesting that we only do shared and nailed relations. Sounds
like you agree.
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-02-01 15:59:22|
|Subject: Re: Hot Standby and deadlock detection|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-02-01 15:50:54|
|Subject: Re: contrib\xml2 package's xpath_table function in PostgreSQL|