Excerpts from Jeff Davis's message of mar ago 09 16:03:26 -0400 2011: > On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 14:52 -0400, Brian Pitts wrote: > > When an ext2, ext3, or ext4 filesystem is mounted directly on the > > PGDATA directory, initdb will refuse to run because it sees the > > lost+found directory that mke2fs created and assumes the PGDATA > > directory is already in use for something other than PostgreSQL. > > Attached is a patch against master which will cause a directory that > > contains only lost+found to still be treated as empty. > > > > This was previously proposed in 2001; see > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2001-03/msg01194.php > > In the referenced discussion (10 years ago), Tom seemed OK with it and > Peter did not seem to like it much. > > I think I agree with Peter here that it's not a very good idea, and I > don't see a big upside. With tablespaces it seems to make a little bit > more sense, but I'd still lean away from that idea.
What if the init script tries to start postmaster before the filesystems are mounted? ISTM requiring a subdir is a good sanity check that the system is ready to run. Not creating stuff directly on the mountpoint ensures consistency. If you don't think this is a likely problem, search for Joe Conway's report about a NFS share being unmounted for a while when postmaster was started up, a couple of years ago. Yes, it's rare. Yes, it's real. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
