Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dilip Kumar
Subject Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints
Date
Msg-id CAFiTN-uMp7V=oj23ZACUS--nKGdJLeGU+BsUqw3dtmeg0Bf+PA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints  (Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 8:34 AM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +       /*
> +        * If the relation is from the default tablespace then we need to
> +        * create it in the destinations db's default tablespace.  Otherwise,
> +        * we need to create in the same tablespace as it is in the source
> +        * database.
> +        */
>
> This comment looks a bit confusing to me especially because when we say destination db's default tablespace people
maythink of pg_default tablespace (at least I think so). Basically what you are trying to say here - "If the relation
existsin the same tablespace as the src database, then in the destination db also it should be the same or something
likethat.. " So, why not put it that way instead of referring to it as the default tablespace. It's just my view. If
youdisagree you can ignore it. 
>
> --
>
> +       else if (src_dboid == dst_dboid)
> +           continue;
> +       else
> +           dstrnode.spcNode = srcrnode.spcNode;;
>
> There is an extra semicolon here.


Noted. I will fix them in the next version.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: Add sub-transaction overflow status in pg_stat_activity
Next
From: Ashutosh Sharma
Date:
Subject: Re: Multi-Column List Partitioning