| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthew Wakeling <mnw21(at)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE DATABASE vs delayed table unlink |
| Date: | 2008-10-09 10:38:38 |
| Message-ID: | 48EDDF2E.7080909@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Matthew Wakeling wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>>> Another thought is to ignore ENOENT in copydir.
>
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I thought about that too, but it seems extremely dangerous ...
>
> I agree. If a file randomly goes missing, that's not an error to ignore,
> even if you think the only way that could happen is safe.
I committed a patch to do a full-blown checkpoint before the copy.
Annoying to do two checkpoints, but CREATE DATABASE is a pretty
heavy-weight operation anyway. I don't see any other solution at the
moment, at least not one that we could back-patch.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2008-10-09 12:01:10 | Re: [WIP] Reduce alignment requirements on 64-bit systems. |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-10-09 10:16:44 | Re: CREATE DATABASE vs delayed table unlink |