| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgbackrest(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>, Pgsql hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: A new look at old NFS readdir() problems? |
| Date: | 2025-01-07 00:08:55 |
| Message-ID: | 1363207.1736208535@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Steele <david(at)pgbackrest(dot)org> writes:
> On 1/4/25 11:07, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> As for CIFS, there are lots of reports of this sort of thing from
>> Linux CIFS clients.
> There may be users running Postgres on CIFS but my guess is that is rare
> -- at least I have never seen anyone doing it.
It'd be news to me too. I wondered if I could test it locally, but
while my NAS knows half a dozen such protocols it's never heard of
CIFS.
> I'm more concerned about the report we saw on SUSE/NFS [1]. If that
> report is accurate it indicates this may not be something we can just
> document and move on from -- unless we are willing to entirely drop
> support for NFS.
> [1] https://github.com/pgbackrest/pgbackrest/issues/1423
I installed an up-to-date OpenSUSE image (Leap 15.6) and it passes
my "rmtree" test just fine with my NAS. The report you cite
doesn't have any details on what the NFS server was, but I'd be
inclined to guess that that server's filesystem lacked support
for stable NFS cookies.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2025-01-07 00:12:53 | Moving the vacuum GUCs' docs out of the Client Connection Defaults section |
| Previous Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2025-01-06 23:45:18 | Re: Why doesn't GiST VACUUM require a super-exclusive lock, like nbtree VACUUM? |