From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: could not stat promote trigger file leads to shutdown |
Date: | 2020-05-19 06:13:13 |
Message-ID: | 20200519061313.GD11835@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 11:52:33AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Is it possible to do this in a mostly bullet-proof way? Just because the
> directory exists and looks pretty good otherwise, doesn't mean we can read a
> file created in it later in a way that doesn't fall afoul of the existing
> error checks. There could be something like SELinux lurking, for example.
>
> Maybe some initial checking would be useful, but I think we still need to
> downgrade the error check at use time a bit to not crash in the cases that
> we miss.
I got that thread in my backlog for some time, and was not able to
come back to it. Reading it again the thread, it seems to me that
using a LOG would make the promote file handling more consistent with
what we do for the SSL context reload. Still, one downside I can see
here is that this causes the backend to create a new LOG entry each
time the promote file is checked, aka each time we check if WAL is
available. Couldn't that bloat be a problem? During the SSL reload,
we only generate LOG entries for each backend on SIGHUP.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2020-05-19 06:17:26 | Re: Add A Glossary |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-05-19 04:41:39 | Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES |