	Hiroshi wrote:
> Ole Gjerde who provided the patch for current implementation of 
> mdtruncate() sayz.
> "First, please reverse my patch to mdtruncate() in md.c as soon as
>  possible.  It does not work properly in some cases."
> 
> I also recommend to reverse his patch to mdtruncate().
> 
> Though we could not shrink segmented relations by old implementation 
> the result by vacuum would never be inconsistent(?).
> 
> I think we don't have enough time to fix this.
> 
If there is no fix for vacuum, I suggest to change the filesize before
splitting
back to just below 2 Gb (2Gb - 8k). Else vacuum will only work for tables
up to 1 Gb, and it did work up to 2 Gb before.

I am the one who suggested 1 Gb, so I had my eye on this issue.
I still think 1 Gb is good for various reasons, but only if vacuum works.

Andreas

Fri, 4 Jun 1999 10:49:24 +0200 
ZEUGSWETTER Andreas IZ5 <Andreas.Zeugswetter@telecom.at>
important Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.5 items
ZEUGSWETTER Andreas IZ5 wrote:
> 
>         Hiroshi wrote:
> > Ole Gjerde who provided the patch for current implementation of
> > mdtruncate() sayz.
> > "First, please reverse my patch to mdtruncate() in md.c as soon as
> >  possible.  It does not work properly in some cases."
> >
> > I also recommend to reverse his patch to mdtruncate().
> >
> > Though we could not shrink segmented relations by old implementation
> > the result by vacuum would never be inconsistent(?).
> >
> > I think we don't have enough time to fix this.
> >
> If there is no fix for vacuum, I suggest to change the filesize before
> splitting
> back to just below 2 Gb (2Gb - 8k). Else vacuum will only work for tables
> up to 1 Gb, and it did work up to 2 Gb before.
> 
> I am the one who suggested 1 Gb, so I had my eye on this issue.
> I still think 1 Gb is good for various reasons, but only if vacuum works.

Is this issue addressed by last mdtruncate() changes?

Vadim

Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:10:17 +0800
Vadim Mikheev <vadim@krs.ru>
Re: important Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.5 items
> > I am the one who suggested 1 Gb, so I had my eye on this issue.
> > I still think 1 Gb is good for various reasons, but only if vacuum works.
> 
> Is this issue addressed by last mdtruncate() changes?
> 

I think it is 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, Pennsylvania 19026

Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:58:24 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: important Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.5 items
> 	Hiroshi wrote:
> > Ole Gjerde who provided the patch for current implementation of 
> > mdtruncate() sayz.
> > "First, please reverse my patch to mdtruncate() in md.c as soon as
> >  possible.  It does not work properly in some cases."
> > 
> > I also recommend to reverse his patch to mdtruncate().
> > 
> > Though we could not shrink segmented relations by old implementation 
> > the result by vacuum would never be inconsistent(?).
> > 
> > I think we don't have enough time to fix this.
> > 
> If there is no fix for vacuum, I suggest to change the filesize before
> splitting
> back to just below 2 Gb (2Gb - 8k). Else vacuum will only work for tables
> up to 1 Gb, and it did work up to 2 Gb before.
> 
> I am the one who suggested 1 Gb, so I had my eye on this issue.
> I still think 1 Gb is good for various reasons, but only if vacuum works.

This is where we dropped the ball.  We should have made this recommended
change before 6.5.

-- 
  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, Pennsylvania 19026

Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:12:10 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: important Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.5 items