| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: access method: are disk pages mandatory? |
| Date: | 2010-06-23 15:33:29 |
| Message-ID: | 4C222949.9090305@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 23/06/10 18:17, Leonardo F wrote:
> in bufpage.h:
>
> "all blocks written out by an access method must be disk pages"
>
> but in
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/storage-page-layout.html
>
> "Actually, index access methods need not use this page format. All the
> existing index methods do use this basic format, but the data kept on
> index metapages usually doesn't follow the item layout rules."
>
> I'm not getting it: am I supposed to use the "disk page format" when
> writing an index access method, or it's just a "good practice" because
> it makes the handling easier? Given the docs it looks "recommended",
> but the comment on the code sounds more "mandatory".
It's recommened because it makes life easier. Even if you don't use the
normal page format, I think you need to have the LSN at the beginning of
the page. The rest is up to you.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-06-23 15:41:04 | Re: Partitioning syntax |
| Previous Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2010-06-23 15:25:19 | Re: Partitioning syntax |