Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup

From: David Gould <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net>
To: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup
Date: 2015-11-21 10:52:16
Message-ID: 20151121025216.49ea8e46@engels
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 14:16:56 +0900
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)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.

Perhaps matching *core* and size > 100MB or so would cover that.

-dg

--
David Gould 510 282 0869 daveg(at)sonic(dot)net
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-11-21 20:58:41 Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2015-11-21 05:16:56 Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup