Re: fsync-pgdata-on-recovery tries to write to more files than previously
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: fsync-pgdata-on-recovery tries to write to more files than previously |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 12030.1432575481@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: fsync-pgdata-on-recovery tries to write to more files than previously (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: fsync-pgdata-on-recovery tries to write to more files
than previously
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > On May 24, 2015 7:52:53 AM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> writes: >>> pg_log/ is also admin domain. What about only recursing into >>> well-known directories + postgresql.auto.conf? >> The idea that this code would know exactly what's what under $PGDATA >> scares me. I can positively guarantee that it would diverge from >> reality over time, and nobody would notice until it ate their data, >> failed to start, or otherwise behaved undesirably. >> >> pg_log/ is a perfect example, because that is not a hard-wired >> directory name; somebody could point the syslogger at a different place >> very easily. Wiring in special behavior for that name is just wrong. >> >> I would *much* rather have a uniform rule for how to treat each file >> the scan comes across. It might take some tweaking to get to one that >> works well; but once we did, we could have some confidence that it >> wouldn't break later. > If we'd merge it with initdb's list I think I'd not be that bad. I'm thinking of some header declaring it, roughly likethe rmgr list. pg_log/ is a counterexample to that idea too; initdb doesn't know about it (and shouldn't). regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: