On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2011/5/31 Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de>: >> 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. > > I'm open to suggestions on how to rearrange this, but I think for > right now the approach you proposed upthread (add a smgrexists() test) > is probably the simplest way to fix this.
Done. Your patch tested for FSM_FORKNUM instead of INIT_FORKNUM, which seemed wrong, so I changed it. I also added comments. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
