| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'jim(at)buttafuoco(dot)net'" <jim(at)buttafuoco(dot)net>, "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Index location patch for review |
| Date: | 2001-09-12 19:54:25 |
| Message-ID: | 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E32016779@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I don't understand the WAL issue below, can you explain. The dir name
> is the same name as the database with _index added to it. This is how
> the current datpath stuff works. I really just copied the datpath
> code to get this patch to work...
At the time of after crash recovery WAL is not able to read relation
description from catalog and so only relfilenode is provided for
storage manager in relation structure (look backend/access/transam/
xlogutils.c:XLogOpenRelation). Well, we could add Index/Table
file type identifier to RmgrData (rmgr.c in the same dir) to set
relkind in relation structure, but I don't see any reason to
do so when we can just use different tblnode number for indices and
name index dirs just like other dirs under 'base' named - ie
only tblnode number is used for dir names, without any additions
unrelated to storage issues.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-09-12 20:05:37 | Re: Index location patch for review |
| Previous Message | Jim Buttafuoco | 2001-09-12 19:32:42 | Re: Index location patch for review |