From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeffrey(dot)Marshall(at)usitc(dot)gov, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Permission Denied Error on pg_xlog/RECOVERYXLOG file |
Date: | 2016-06-03 20:13:21 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobXRJ_AhQ4M6z2qzzf45_UArPWpUb1YKrbcs=wqBOZnNA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2016-06-03 14:00:00 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> > I'm not convinced of that. Hiding unexpected issues for longer, just to
>> > continue kind-of-operating, can make the impact of problems a lot worse,
>> > and it makes it very hard to actually learn about the issues.
>>
>> So if we made this a WARNING rather than an ERROR, it wouldn't hiding
>> the issue, but it would be less likely to break things that worked
>> before. No?
>
> Except that we're then accepting the (proven!) potential for data
> loss. We're talking about a single report of an restore_command setting
> odd permissions. Which can easily be fixed.
Well, I think that having restore_command start failing after a minor
release update can cause data loss, too. Or even an outage.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2016-06-03 20:16:15 | Re: [pg_trgm] Making similarity(?, ?) < ? use an index |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-03 20:02:07 | Re: [pg_trgm] Making similarity(?, ?) < ? use an index |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-06-03 20:13:37 | Changed SRF in targetlist handling |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-03 19:52:12 | Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling |