Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.5 items

From: Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>
To: ZEUGSWETTER Andreas IZ5 <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.5 items
Date: 1999-06-07 15:40:14
Message-ID: 375BE7DE.436F44FD@krs.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

ZEUGSWETTER Andreas IZ5 wrote:
>
> > One reason to do truncate is that if it is a symbolic link to another
> > driver, that link will stay, while unlink will not, and will recreate on
> > on the same drive.
> >
> That is the first good argument in favor of truncate other than
> coding issues. I like it. It is actually very good :-)
>
> My only concern with leaving the files around would be, that there is
> a chance for other backends to write where they should not.

Seems that shouldn't be problem here:

- only vacuum trancates relations;
- vacuum locks a relation in Access Exclusive mode;
- hepa_beginscan (used by both SeqScan and IndexScan)
tries to lock a relation in Access Share mode _before_
call to RelationGetNumberOfBlocks()->smgrnblocks();
- INSERT acquires Row Exclusive lock on relation
before doing anything;

- so, anyone should get valid number of blocks.

But mdmgr should be tested...

Vadim

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 1999-06-07 15:47:48 Re: [HACKERS] Bug in LIKE ?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-06-07 15:35:35 Re: [COMMITTERS] 'pgsql/src/backend/parser gram.y'