| From: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pierre(dot)ducroquet(at)people-doc(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> | 
| Subject: | Re: Bug with pg_basebackup and 'shared' tablespace | 
| Date: | 2017-10-01 05:10:38 | 
| Message-ID: | 1d53f8bb-9ef6-14dc-e9dd-ae83b8860a0b@catalyst.net.nz | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On 30/09/17 06:43, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:06 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> My tendency about this patch is still that it should be rejected. This
>> is presenting additional handling for no real gain.
> I vehemently disagree.  If the server lets you create a tablespace,
> then everything that happens after that ought to work.
>
> On another thread, there is the issue that if you create a tablespace
> inside $PGDATA, things break.  We should either unbreak those things
> or not allow creating the tablespace in the first place.  On this
> thread, there is the issue that if you create two tablespaces for
> different PG versions in the same directory, things break.  We should
> either unbreak those things or not allow creating the tablespace in
> the first place.
>
> It is completely awful behavior to let users do things and then punish
> them later for having done them.  Users are not obliged to read the
> minds of the developers and guess what things the developers consider
> "reasonable".  They should be able to count on the principle that if
> they do something that we consider wrong, they'll get an error when
> they try to do it -- not have it superficially appear to work and then
> explode later.
>
> To put that another way, there should be ONE rule about what is or is
> not allowable in a particular situation, and all commands, utilities,
> etc. that deal with that situation should handle it in a uniform
> fashion.  Each .c file shouldn't get to make up its own notion of what
> is or is not supported.
>
+1
It seems simply wrong (and potentially dangerous) to allow users to 
arrange a system state that cannot be backed up (easily/without surgery 
etc etc).
Also the customer concerned that did exactly that started the 
conversation about it with me like this (paraphrasing) 'So this 
pg_basebackup thing is a bit temperamental...'. I'm thinking we do not 
want to be giving users this impression.
regards
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2017-10-01 06:38:34 | Re: pgbench - minor fix for meta command only scripts | 
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-10-01 05:04:13 | Re: extension build issue with PostgreSQL 10 on Centos6 |