| From: | Matthew Wakeling <mnw21(at)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE DATABASE vs delayed table unlink |
| Date: | 2008-10-09 10:10:08 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.1.10.0810091103160.15851@aragorn.flymine.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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 could be wrong - but couldn't other bad things happen too? If you're
copying the files before the checkpoint has completed, couldn't the new
database end up with some of the recent changes going missing? Or is that
prevented by FlushDatabaseBuffers?
Matthew
--
Isn't "Microsoft Works" something of a contradiction?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-10-09 10:16:44 | Re: CREATE DATABASE vs delayed table unlink |
| Previous Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2008-10-09 10:06:18 | auto_explain contrib moudle |