From: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 7:33 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Mmm. Not exact. The requirement here is that we must be certain that
> > the we don't have a buffuer for blocks after the file size known to
> > the process. While recoverying, If the first lseek() returned smaller
> > size than actual, we cannot have a buffer for the blocks after the
> > size. After we trncated or extended the file, we are certain that we
> > don't have a buffer for unknown blocks.
>
> Thanks, I understand now. Something feels fragile about it, perhaps
> because it's not really acting as a "cache" anymore despite its name,
> but I see the logic now. It becomes the authoritative source of
> information, even if the kernel decides to make our file smaller
> asynchronously.
Thank you Horiguchi-san, you are a savior! I was worried like the end of the world has come.
> I think a synchronised file size cache wouldn't be enough to use this
> trick outside the recovery process, because the initial value would
> come from a call to lseek(), but unlike recovery, that wouldn't happen
> *before* we start putting pages in the buffer pool. Also, if we one
> day have a size-limited relcache, even recovery could get into
> trouble, if it evicts the RelationData that holds the authoritative
> nblocks value.
That's too bad, because we hoped we may be able to various operations during normal operation (TRUNCATE, DROP
TABLE/INDEX,DROP DATABASE, etc.) An honest man can't believe the system call, that's a hell.
I'm probably being silly, but can't we avoid the problem by using fstat() instead of lseek(SEEK_END)? Would they
returnthe same value from the i-node?
Or, can't we just try to do BufTableLookup() one block after what smgrnblocks() returns?
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa