From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pg11+: pg_ls_*dir LIMIT 1: temporary files .. not closed at end-of-transaction |
Date: | 2020-03-31 05:36:03 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.21.2003310723560.16227@pseudo |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
>> As I wrote about an earlier version of the patch, ISTM that instead of
>> reinventing, extending, adapting various ls variants (with/without
>> metadata, which show only files, which shows target of links, which shows
>> directory, etc.) we would just need *one* postgres "ls" implementation
>> which would be like "ls -la arg" (returns file type, dates), and then
>> everything else is a wrapper around that with appropriate filtering that
>> can be done at the SQL level, like you started with recurse.
>
> Yeah, I agree that some new function that can represent symlinks
> explicitly in its output is the place to deal with this, for
> people who want to deal with it.
>
> In the meantime, there's still the question of what pg_ls_dir_files
> should do exactly. Are we content to have it ignore symlinks?
> I remain inclined to think that's the right thing given its current
> brief.
My 0.02€:
I agree that it is enough to reproduce the current behavior of various
existing pg_ls* functions, but on the other hand outputing a column type
char like ls (-, d, l…) looks like really no big deal. I'd say that the
only reason not to do it may be to pass this before feature freeze.
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2020-03-31 05:40:14 | Re: backup manifests |
Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2020-03-31 05:20:16 | Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots |