| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tim Perdue <tperdue(at)valinux(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: More info |
| Date: | 2000-07-10 04:39:09 |
| Message-ID: | 24935.963203949@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tim Perdue <tperdue(at)valinux(dot)com> writes:
> Any idea why 6.5.3 would have created tens of thousands of files like
> these in the /data/base/db_geocrawler/ directory?
Funny you should mention that, because I was just in process of testing
a fix when your mail came in. The low-level routine that accesses a
particular segment of a multi-segment relation develops a serious case
of Sorcerer's Apprentice syndrome if higher levels hand it a silly block
number. If you tell it to access, say, block# 2 billion, it will
merrily start creating empty segment files till it gets to the segment
number that corresponds to that block number.
The routine does need to be able to create *one* new segment, in case it
is asked to access the block just past the current EOF (when EOF is at a
segment boundary) ... but not more than one. As of current sources, it
knows not to do more.
This bug has been known for a while. It doesn't directly answer your
problem though, since the real issue is "what generated the silly block
number, and why"?
I can't quite resist the temptation to suggest that you should be
running 7.0.2 ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-10 05:02:19 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. MySQL |
| Previous Message | Graeme Merrall | 2000-07-10 04:31:52 | Re: Slashdot discussion |