On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 11:42:59AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 10:55:58AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Ciprian Popovici discovered an entirely new way to break the safety
> >> interlocks that are meant to prevent you from starting a postmaster
> >> in a data directory of the wrong version:
> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2005-06/msg01349.php
> >> While one could say this is pilot error, it's still annoying that
> >> the database manages to hose itself so thoroughly.
> > There will always be a way for a user with enough knowlege to hose a
> > database completely. I think it's significant that Mr. Popovici is
> > the first to manage this one, in the sense that it takes an especially
> > creative combination of a little knowlege and rushing in where angels
> > fear to tread to reproduce the problem. There will never be a
> > solution to human foolishness, so I say we just tell him and others
> > like him to restore from backup and move on.
> Well, I'm not sure that he's the first to manage it --- he's just the
> first to report it in an identifiable way (which is the usual criterion
> for assigning credit for discoveries ;-)).
> Renaming data directories around is not that uncommon,
With all due respect, I believe that this falls under the category of
prying off cover plates. When people do this, they're responsible for
knowing what they're about, and taking the consequences if they don't.
In other words, it's pilot error, and that's Not Our Problem.
> especially if you're using a platform that really really wants the
> active database to be /var/lib/pgsql/data (if you're running Red
> Hat's current selinux policy, you don't have a whole lotta choice
> about that). All you have to do is rename and shut down the
> postmaster in the wrong order, and you're hosed. (The terminating
> checkpoint will be able to write some files and not others,
> depending on what it already had open, so I think this could be a
> recipe for corrupting the moved-away database as well as the
> moved-in one :-()
> Do you have a specific objection to switching over to relative
> paths, or are you just saying that this one report doesn't excite
> you enough to change it?
The latter, because I believe that this isn't a situation a reasonable
person can stumble into.
David Fetter david(at)fetter(dot)org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2005-06-30 17:29:07|
|Subject: Re: Occupied port warning|
|Previous:||From: Al_Dev||Date: 2005-06-30 16:55:21|
|Subject: Language to use with SQL database - Number ONE computer language - Language Shootout|