Em ter., 21 de mai. de 2024 às 05:18, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com> escreveu:
Hi,
On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 17:47, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 9:43 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com> wrote: > > Actually, the documentation for the file_copy_method was mentioning > > the things it controls; I converted it to an itemized list now. Also, > > changed the comment to: 'Further uses of this function requires > > updates to the list that GUC controls in its documentation.'. v7 is > > attached. > > I think the comments need some wordsmithing.
I changed it to 'Uses of this function must be documented in the list of places affected by this GUC.', I am open to any suggestions.
> I don't see why this parameter should be PGC_POSTMASTER.
I changed it to 'PGC_USERSET' now. My initial point was the database or tablespace to be copied with the same method. I thought copying some portion of the database with the copy and rest with the clone could cause potential problems. After a bit of searching, I could not find any problems related to that.
v8 is attached.
Hi,
I did some research on the subject and despite being an improvement,
I believe that some terminologies should be changed in this patch. Although the new function is called *clone_file*, I'm not sure if it really is "clone". Why MacOS added an API called clonefile [1] and Linux exists another called FICLONE.[2] So perhaps it should be treated here as a copy and not a clone? Leaving it open, is the possibility of implementing a true clone api? Thoughts?