> > > I wonder that no one but me object to the patch.
> > > It may cause serious results.
> >
> > How? Why? In what way? Details?
> >
>
> I don't have tables > 1G.
> So I won't be damaged by the patch.
>
> But I don't understand what Beta is.
> Why isn't such a dangerous fucntion checked and tested
> carefully ?
>
> For example,the following code is not changed by the patch.
>
> if (FileTruncate(v->mdfd_vfd, nblocks * BLCKSZ) < 0)
> return -1;
>
> It never truncate segmented files and there may be cases the
> original file increases its size(ftruncate() increases the size of
> target file if the requested size is longer than the actual size).
> It's not checked and tested and once it occurs I don't know
> what will happen.
>
> But my anxiety is the use of unlink()(FileNameUnlink()).
>
> Unlink() is very dangerous.
> Unlink() never remove the target file immediately.and even the
> truncating process doesn't close the files by the patch and so
> unlinked files are still alive for all processes which have already
> opened the files.
> Who checked and tested the influence carefully ?
>
> I think it's not so easy to implement and check mdtruncate().
OK, I see what you are saying, but the multi-segment problem is on our
list to fix. Is this risking non-multi-segment cases. If not, then
let's keep it, and continue improving the multi-segment handling,
because it was pretty bad before, and we need it fixed.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
