From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Michael Nolan *EXTERN* <htfoot(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: problem/bug in drop tablespace? |
Date: | 2012-05-12 03:03:05 |
Message-ID: | 23506.1336791785@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie may 11 20:28:28 -0400 2012:
>> I'm astonished we don't do that already. Seems inconsistent with
>> other SQL object types - most obviously, schemas - and a potentially
>> giant foot-gun.
> The original patch did contain tablespace tracking (though I don't
> remember considering whether they were default or not), but it got
> ripped out because during the subsequent discussion we considered that
> it wasn't necessary to keep track of it -- supposedly, whenever you were
> going to delete a tablespace, the existing files in the directory would
> be sufficient evidence to stop the deletion. Evidently I failed to
> consider the case at hand.
Well, the question to me is exactly how much good it will do to stop
deletion of the pg_tablespace entry, if the underlying files are gone.
I'm having a hard time getting excited about expending cycles on that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Nolan | 2012-05-12 04:03:41 | Re: problem/bug in drop tablespace? |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-05-12 02:58:16 | Re: problem/bug in drop tablespace? |