From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
Date: | 2020-08-21 04:49:55 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+80fV1nJ88UVE3c+n34iowwiK0=hgW96rtAQHtJuM+cw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:14 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 5:42 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 2:30 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Right, I think this can happen if one has changed those by BufFileSeek
> > > before doing truncate. We should fix that case as well.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > > > I will work on those along with your other comments and
> > > > submit the updated patch.
> >
> > I have fixed this in the attached patch along with your other
> > comments. I have also attached a contrib module that is just used for
> > testing the truncate API.
> >
>
> Few comments:
> ==============
> +void
> +BufFileTruncateShared(BufFile *file, int fileno, off_t offset)
> {
> ..
> + if ((i != fileno || offset == 0) && i != 0)
> + {
> + SharedSegmentName(segment_name, file->name, i);
> + FileClose(file->files[i]);
> + if (!SharedFileSetDelete(file->fileset, segment_name, true))
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + (errcode_for_file_access(),
> + errmsg("could not delete shared fileset \"%s\": %m",
> + segment_name)));
> + numFiles--;
> + newOffset = MAX_PHYSICAL_FILESIZE;
> +
> + if (i == fileno)
> + newFile--;
> + }
>
> Here, shouldn't it be i <= fileno? Because we need to move back the
> curFile up to newFile whenever curFile is greater than newFile
>
I think now I have understood why you have added this condition but
probably a comment on the lines "This is required to indicate that we
have removed the given fileno" would be better for future readers.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Nancarrow | 2020-08-21 04:53:33 | Re: Libpq support to connect to standby server as priority |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-08-21 03:58:10 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |