On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> OK. Is there any value in doing mkdir -p in WAL-recovery execution of >>> CREATE TABLESPACE but not regular execution? > >> I don't think so. If someone creates a directory that is not fsync'd, >> and then creates a subdirectory and puts a tablespace on it, and then >> crashes after this has been WAL-logged but before the directory >> entries have hit the disk, well, unlucky for them, but that's a >> vanishingly rare situation. > > I'm not really thinking about crash recovery, but replication slaves. > Omitting to create the tablespace location directories on slaves > doesn't seem far-fetched at all. Of course, it's likely that > the slave server will lack permissions to create in the location > directory's parent; but if it can, the outcome shouldn't be too > unreasonable.
Creating the tablespace directory itself would be reasonable, but recursing all the way up seems dubious. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers