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

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup
Date: 2015-11-21 05:16:56
Message-ID: CAB7nPqThD70_X0xUHwrVo4kYUXndgmxJ1uoP7eB2T36UWsLpBg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

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.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Gould 2015-11-21 10:52:16 Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-11-21 01:54:50 Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup