Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled

From: "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jacky Leng <lengjianquan(at)163(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled
Date: 2007-10-18 14:18:21
Message-ID: 47176B2D.8090906@phlo.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I tend to agree that truncating the file, and extending the fsync
>> request mechanism to actually delete it after the next checkpoint,
>> is the most reasonable route to a fix.
>
> Ok, I'll write a patch to do that.

What is the argument against making relfilenodes globally unique by adding the
xid and epoch of the creating transaction to the filename? Those 64 bits could
be stuffed into 13 bytes by base-36 encoding (A-Z,0-9). The maximum length of a
relfilenode would then be 10 + 1 + 13 = 24, which any reasonable filesystem
should support IMHO.

regards, Florian Pflug

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian G. Pflug 2007-10-18 14:19:31 Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2007-10-18 14:15:00 Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian G. Pflug 2007-10-18 14:19:31 Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2007-10-18 14:15:00 Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled