Re: crash-recovery replay of CREATE TABLESPACE is broken in HEAD

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: crash-recovery replay of CREATE TABLESPACE is broken in HEAD
Date: 2010-07-19 05:02:08
Message-ID: 201007190502.o6J528Z08987@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > The attached patch does as suggested. I added the recovery code to the
> > create tablespace function so I didn't have to duplicate all the code
> > that computes the path names.
> >
> > Attached.
>
> Uh, another question. Looking at the createdb recovery, I see:
>
> /*
> * Our theory for replaying a CREATE is to forcibly drop the target
> * subdirectory if present, then re-copy the source data. This may be
> * more work than needed, but it is simple to implement.
> */
> if (stat(dst_path, &st) == 0 && S_ISDIR(st.st_mode))
> {
> if (!rmtree(dst_path, true))
> ereport(WARNING,
> (errmsg("some useless files may be left behind in old database directory \"%s\"",
> dst_path)));
> }
>
> Should I be using rmtree() on the mkdir target?
>
> Also, the original tablespace recovery code did not drop the symlink
> first. I assume that was not a bug only because we don't support moving
> tablespaces:

For consistency with CREATE DATABASE recovery and for reliablity, I
coded the rmtree() call instead. Patch attached.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ None of us is going to be here forever. +

Attachment Content-Type Size
/pgpatches/tablespace_replay_fix text/x-diff 1.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2010-07-19 06:46:52 Re: ALTER TABLE SET STATISTICS requires AccessExclusiveLock
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2010-07-19 03:06:15 Re: Review: Row-level Locks & SERIALIZABLE transactions, postgres vs. Oracle