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 C=C3=A9dric 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().
> > > >=20
> > > > Thats imo wrong because it will break a plain REINDEX?
> > >=20
> > > > 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.
> > >=20
> > > So I think it is the simpler version of simply checking the existance
> > > of the fork before creating is ok.
>=20
> 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=
=20
REINDEX even though a new relfilenode is created and thus the fork needs to=
be=20
created.
It doesn't seem terribly clean do do the !smgrexists(), I aggree with you=
=20
there. On the other hand we are calling smgrcreate() two lines down anyway.=
I=20
personally don't realy like the placement of that piece of code very much.=
=20
Doing it in index_build seems to be the wrong place. I don't think there=20
really is a good place for it right now.
Andres
