On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 7:21 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In this version, I also removed the struct padding, changed the limit
> on the number of entries to a nice round 64, and made some comment
> updates. I considered trying to go further and actually make the file
> variable-size, so that we never again need to worry about the limit on
> the number of entries, but I don't actually think that's a good idea.
> It would require substantially more changes to the code in this file,
> and that means there's more risk of introducing bugs, and I don't see
> that there's much value anyway, because if we ever do hit the current
> limit, we can just raise the limit.
>
> If we were going to split up durable_rename(), the only intelligible
> split I can see would be to have a second version of the function, or
> a flag to the existing function, that caters to the situation where
> the old file is already known to have been fsync()'d.
The patch looks good except one minor comment
+ * corruption. Since the file might be more tha none standard-size disk
+ * sector in size, we cannot rely on overwrite-in-place. Instead, we generate
typo "more tha none" -> "more than one"
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
