From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Oskari Saarenmaa <os(at)ohmu(dot)fi>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_basebackup fails with long tablespace paths |
Date: | 2015-01-14 19:45:38 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobM2tWoMWAbi57sp+7vfTU95V8+f79spA6Rs25a5aWRAg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> I think the key point I'm approaching is that the information should
> only ever be in one place, all the time. This is not dissimilar from
> why we took the tablespace location out of the system catalogs. Users
> might have all kinds of workflows for how they back up, restore, and
> move their tablespaces. This works pretty well right now, because the
> authoritative configuration information is always in plain view. The
> proposal is essentially that we add another location for this
> information, because the existing location is incompatible with some
> operating system tools. And, when considered by a user, that second
> location might or might not collide with or overwrite the first location
> at some mysterious times.
>
> So I think the preferable fix is not to add a second location, but to
> make the first location compatible with said operating system tools,
> possibly in the way I propose above.
I see. I'm a little concerned that following symlinks may be cheaper
than whatever system we would come up with for caching the
tablespace-name-to-file-name mappings. But that concern might be
unfounded, and apart from it I have no reason to oppose your proposal,
if you want to do the work.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2015-01-14 19:49:28 | Re: hung backends stuck in spinlock heavy endless loop |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-01-14 19:36:21 | Re: Removing INNER JOINs |