Re: BUG #14999: pg_rewind corrupts control file global/pg_control
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #14999: pg_rewind corrupts control file global/pg_control |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20180407222258.GA3345@paquier.xyz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #14999: pg_rewind corrupts control file global/pg_control (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #14999: pg_rewind corrupts control file global/pg_control
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 11:51:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > In any case, after another look at the code, it seems to me that it'd be > pretty easy to get pg_rewind to notice at the start whether a target file > it plans to overwrite is read-only: process_source_file is already doing > an lstat per file, so I think a permissions check there wouldn't add much > overhead. So at that point we could either bail out without damage, or > decide to skip the file. Yes, that's one of the methods I mentioned in my previous email. Now, do we want to fail the run immediately if such a file is found? Or do we want to report at once all such files so as the user does not need to run multiple times pg_rewind. The latter would be much more useful. A downside here is that the file from the source would still be fetched and copied on the target. So a file which was in read-only would become basically writable. Don't think that it is a big deal as the has superuser rights at this point, but that's worth mentioning. > We could still lose if permissions change midway > through the run, but that's the sort of situation I think is OK to fail > in. If the file system switches to read-only in the middle of the run, I see no way to recover from that. That would be bad luck, but it is way better to fail hard and let the user that something has gone wrong. I still think that we want to document that if pg_rewind fails hard midflight, then the only thing safe enough moving forward is to use a new base backup. -- Michael
Вложения
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: