Re: fsync-pgdata-on-recovery tries to write to more files than previously
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: fsync-pgdata-on-recovery tries to write to more files than previously |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BA87658B-674E-43FB-9E76-14326CAE113E@anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: fsync-pgdata-on-recovery tries to write to more files than previously (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: fsync-pgdata-on-recovery tries to write to more files than previously
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On May 24, 2015 7:52:53 AM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> writes: >> Re: To Andres Freund 2015-05-24 <20150524075244.GB27048@msg.df7cb.de> >>> Re: Andres Freund 2015-05-24 ><20150524005245.GD32396@alap3.anarazel.de> >>>> How about, to avoid masking actual problems, we have a more >>>> differentiated logic for the toplevel data directory? > >> 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 like thermgr list. Andres --- Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: