Re: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Bruce Momjian
Тема Re: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig
Дата
Msg-id 199906180401.AAA15528@candle.pha.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на RE: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig  ("Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>)
Ответы RE: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig
Список pgsql-hackers
> > What this does is to create a zero length file, and the rename unlinks
> > the tablename file, and puts the zero-length file in it's place.
> > rename() is atomic, so there is no time that the table file does not
> > exist.
> >
> 
> Let
>     i1 be the inode of zz
>     i2 be the inode of tablename
> before rename().
> 
> Does this mean
> 
>     New backends read/write i1 inode and
>     backends that have the table open read/write i2 inode ?
> 
> If so,it seems wrong.
> All backends should see same data.

Yes, I can see your point.  It would show them different views of the
table.

So, as you were saying, we have no way of invalidating file descriptors
of other backends for secondary segments.  Why does truncating the file
not work?  Any ideas?

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Hiroshi Inoue"
Дата:
Сообщение: RE: [HACKERS] tables > 1 gig
Следующее
От: Vadim Mikheev
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Apparent bug in _make_subplan