Hi Amit On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Amit kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> wrote:
> >I think we should expect provided path to be relative to current > directory > > or may consider it to be relative to either one of Data or CWD. > >Because normally we expect path to be relative to CWD if some program is > > asking for path in command line. > > Please find the attached patch to make the path relative to CWD and check > if the path is under data directory. > Works good now. Although I am thinking why are you disallowing the absolute path of file. Any particular reason? > > Now the only point raised by Alvaro and you for this patch which is not > yet addressed is : > > > Hmm. I think I'd expect that if I give pg_computemaxlsn a number, it > > should consider that it is a relfilenode, and so it should get a list of > > all segments for all forks of it. So if I give "12345" it should get > > 12345, 12345.1 and so on, and also 12345_vm 12345_vm.1 and so on. > > However, if what I give it is a path, i.e. it contains a slash, I think > > it should only consider the specific file mentioned. In that light, I'm > > not sure that command line options chosen are the best set. > I am just not sure whether we should handle this functionality and if we > have to handle what is better way to provide it to user. > Shall we provide new option -r or something for it. > > Opinions/Suggestions? > > IMHO, such functionality can be easily extendable in future. > However I have no problem in implementing such functionality if you are of > opinion that this is basic and it should go with first version of feature. > > I also had a similar point made by Alvaro to allow all the segments of the relation for a given relation file name, or add another option do do the same. But if everybody is fine with leaving it for the future, I do not have any further concerns with the patch. It is good from my side. With Regards, > Amit Kapila. > > Thanks Muhammad Usama
