On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 03:27:22 Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Andres Freund's message of lun may 30 20:47:49 -0400 2011: > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 02:35:58 AM Andres Freund wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 02:14:00 AM Andres Freund wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 01:56:05 AM Cédric Villemain wrote: > > > > > I remove my own explanations as we conclude on the same thing. > > > > > Attached is the fix by adding a (!reindex) in the index.c if(). > > > > > > > > Thats imo wrong because it will break a plain REINDEX? > > > > > > > I think one possible correct fix would be the attached: > > > My version was wrong as well because it did not observe > > > RelationTruncate's nblocks argument. That function is used to > > > "shorten" the relation in vacuum. So dropping the init fork there is > > > not a good idea. > > > > > > So I think it is the simpler version of simply checking the existance > > > of the fork before creating is ok. > > Hmm, I wonder if what we should be doing here is observe isreindex in > index_build to avoid creating the init fork. Doing smgr access at that > level seems wrong. isreindex doesn't contain the necessary informormation as its set doing a REINDEX even though a new relfilenode is created and thus the fork needs to be created.
It doesn't seem terribly clean do do the !smgrexists(), I aggree with you there. On the other hand we are calling smgrcreate() two lines down anyway. I personally don't realy like the placement of that piece of code very much. Doing it in index_build seems to be the wrong place. I don't think there really is a good place for it right now. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
