Re: [GENERAL] Permission Denied Error on pg_xlog/RECOVERYXLOG file
От | David Steele |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] Permission Denied Error on pg_xlog/RECOVERYXLOG file |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3b4f0328-648a-0f7d-19dc-ae7830349043@pgmasters.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] Permission Denied Error on pg_xlog/RECOVERYXLOG file (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/3/16 4:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: >> On 2016-06-03 14:00:00 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: >>>> I'm not convinced of that. Hiding unexpected issues for longer, just to >>>> continue kind-of-operating, can make the impact of problems a lot worse, >>>> and it makes it very hard to actually learn about the issues. >>> >>> So if we made this a WARNING rather than an ERROR, it wouldn't hiding >>> the issue, but it would be less likely to break things that worked >>> before. No? >> >> Except that we're then accepting the (proven!) potential for data >> loss. We're talking about a single report of an restore_command setting >> odd permissions. Which can easily be fixed. > > Well, I think that having restore_command start failing after a minor > release update can cause data loss, too. Or even an outage. I'm mostly with Andres on this but you do make a good point, Robert. Andres, what if on EPERM you set write privs on the file and retry? Maybe only back patch that change and for 9.6 expect restore_command scripts to set sane permissions. -- -David david@pgmasters.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: