I don't know if this provides any more info than you already have -
but is my last few lines from a single process backend run with valgrind :
==19666== Syscall param write(buf) contains uninitialised or
unaddressable byte(s)
==19666==at 0x404D94F8: __GI___libc_write (in /lib/libc-2.3.2.so)
==
I'm rewriting the patch so don't worry :-)
Thanks,
Gavin
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> I don't know if this provides any more info than you already have -
> but is my last few lines from a single process backend run with valgrind :
>
> ==19666== Syscall param write(buf) contains u
Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> First of all I would like to ask you if you intend to leave indexes in
>> the old tables space or not.
> Yes, that is intentional.
There's a related issue: what about the table's TOAST table (if any)
and the in
Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe you have to dump each block into WAL as you copy it.
>> That would be kinda ugly ... though in point of fact less of a WAL load
>> than writing individual tuples ...
> Should I use the WAL-enabled case of _bt
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Maybe you have to dump each block into WAL as you copy it.
> >> That would be kinda ugly ... though in point of fact less of a WAL load
> >> than writing individual tuples
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But I did implement it as a tuple at a time thing. I reused the code from
> > rebuild_relation()...
>
> > What did you have in mind?
>
> Something about like
>
> for (b = 0; b < RelationGetNumberOfBlocks(src)
Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But I did implement it as a tuple at a time thing. I reused the code from
> rebuild_relation()...
> What did you have in mind?
Something about like
for (b = 0; b < RelationGetNumberOfBlocks(src); b++)
{
smgrread(src, b, b
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> Also I think we need to enhance ALTER INDEX to assign new table spaces
> >> for indexes. Assigning different tables spaces for tables and indexes
> >> are essential to
Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> Also I think we need to enhance ALTER INDEX to assign new table spaces
>> for indexes. Assigning different tables spaces for tables and indexes
>> are essential to gain more I/O speed IMO.
> I thought about this
On Sun, 2004-06-20 at 17:15, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > > Also I think we need to enhance ALTER INDEX to assign new table spaces
> > > for indexes. Assigning different tables spaces for tables and indexes
> > > are essential to gain more I/O speed IMO.
> >
> > I thought about this. ALTER INDEX doesn'
> > Also I think we need to enhance ALTER INDEX to assign new table spaces
> > for indexes. Assigning different tables spaces for tables and indexes
> > are essential to gain more I/O speed IMO.
>
> I thought about this. ALTER INDEX doesn't exist yet and I figured that,
> unlike the case of tables
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> > > > Attached is a patch implementing this functionality.
> > > >
> > > > I've modified make_new_heap() as well as swap_relfilenodes() to not assume
> > > > that tablespaces remain the same from old to new heap. I thought it better
> > > > to go down
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >
> > > > > Attached is a patch implementing this functionality.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've modified make_new_heap() as well as swap_relfilenodes() to not assume
> > > > > that tablespaces remain the same from ol
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > > Attached is a patch implementing this functionality.
> > >
> > > I've modified make_new_heap() as well as swap_relfilenodes() to not assume
> > > that tablespaces remain the same from old to new heap. I thought it better
> > > to go down this road tha
> > Attached is a patch implementing this functionality.
> >
> > I've modified make_new_heap() as well as swap_relfilenodes() to not assume
> > that tablespaces remain the same from old to new heap. I thought it better
> > to go down this road than introduce a lot of duplicate code.
>
> I have tr
> Attached is a patch implementing this functionality.
>
> I've modified make_new_heap() as well as swap_relfilenodes() to not assume
> that tablespaces remain the same from old to new heap. I thought it better
> to go down this road than introduce a lot of duplicate code.
I have tried your patch
16 matches
Mail list logo
