On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:20 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:14 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 5:42 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 2:30 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.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.
Okay.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com