| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: fsync-pgdata-on-recovery tries to write to more files than previously |
| Date: | 2015-05-29 17:42:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20150529174232.GB24118@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-05-29 13:14:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> As I mentioned yesterday, I'm not really on board with ignoring EACCES,
> except for the directories-on-Windows case. Since we're only logging
> the failures anyway, I think it is reasonable to log a complaint for any
> unwritable file in the data directory.
That sounds like a potentially nontrivial amount of repetitive log bleat
after every crash start? One which the user can't really stop?
> Also I want to get rid of the ETXTBSY special cases. That one doesn't
> seem like something that we should silently ignore: what the heck are
> executables doing in the data directory? Or is there some other meaning
> on Windows?
I've seen a bunch of binaries placed in the data directory as
archive/restore commands. Those will be busy a good amount of the
time. While it'd not be my choice to do that, it's not entirely
unreasonable.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-05-29 17:45:56 | Re: Need Force flag for pg_drop_replication_slot() |
| Previous Message | Abhijit Menon-Sen | 2015-05-29 17:42:06 | Re: fsync-pgdata-on-recovery tries to write to more files than previously |