Re: src/ports/pgcheckdir.c - Ignore dot directories...
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: src/ports/pgcheckdir.c - Ignore dot directories... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20130215171203.GA12030@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: src/ports/pgcheckdir.c - Ignore dot directories... (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: src/ports/pgcheckdir.c - Ignore dot directories...
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 07:21:27PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > Agreed. The attached patch modifies pg_check_dir() to report about > > invisible and lost+found directory entries, and give more helpful > > messages to the user. > > I'm not terribly thrilled with special-casing 'lost+found' like that, > since it's an extremely filesystem-dependent thing that even today > probably only applies to a minority of our installed platforms. > > The special case for dotfiles might be useful, not because of any > connection to mount points but just because someone might forget > that such could be lurking in a directory that "looks empty". I was ready to give up on this patch, but then I thought, what percentage does lost+found and dot-file-only directories cover for mount points? What other cases are there? This updated version of the patch reports about dot files if they are the _only_ files in the directory, and it suggests a top-level mount point might be the cause. Does this help? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: