On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 03:27:22 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Andres Freund's message of lun may 30 20:47:49 -0400 2011:
> > On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 02:35:58 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 02:14:00 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 01:56:05 AM Cédric Villemain wrote:
> > > > > I remove my own explanations as we conclude on the same thing.
> > > > > Attached is the fix by adding a (!reindex) in the index.c if().
> > > >
> > > > Thats imo wrong because it will break a plain REINDEX?
> > >
> > > > I think one possible correct fix would be the attached:
> > > My version was wrong as well because it did not observe
> > > RelationTruncate's nblocks argument. That function is used to
> > > "shorten" the relation in vacuum. So dropping the init fork there is
> > > not a good idea.
> > >
> > > So I think it is the simpler version of simply checking the existance
> > > of the fork before creating is ok.
> Hmm, I wonder if what we should be doing here is observe isreindex in
> index_build to avoid creating the init fork. Doing smgr access at that
> level seems wrong.
isreindex doesn't contain the necessary informormation as its set doing a
REINDEX even though a new relfilenode is created and thus the fork needs to be
It doesn't seem terribly clean do do the !smgrexists(), I aggree with you
there. On the other hand we are calling smgrcreate() two lines down anyway. I
personally don't realy like the placement of that piece of code very much.
Doing it in index_build seems to be the wrong place. I don't think there
really is a good place for it right now.
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Manoranjan Reddy||Date: 2011-05-31 10:26:33|
|Subject: Re: BUG #6022: Postgre84+RHEL6+Veritas file system?|
|Previous:||From: Alex Hunsaker||Date: 2011-05-31 02:32:01|
|Subject: Re: 9.1 plperlu bug with null rows in trigger hash|