Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqThD70_X0xUHwrVo4kYUXndgmxJ1uoP7eB2T36UWsLpBg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in
pg_basebackup
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes: >> On 11/20/2015 2:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> It'd be reasonable to skip 'em if we can identify 'em reliably. I'm >>> not sure how reliably we can do that though. > >> aren't they nearly always named 'core' ? > > No. Modern systems more often call them something like 'core.<pid>'. > What really makes it messy is that the name is user-configurable on > most Linux kernels, see /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern. > > We could probably get away with excluding anything that matches "*core*", > but it wouldn't be bulletproof. It does not look like a good idea to me. I have no doubts that there are deployments including configuration files with such abbreviations in PGDATA. -- Michael
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: