On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > > > > On 05/14/2015 10:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 2:10 AM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> How about if we simply abort if we find a non-symlink where we want the > >>>> symlink to be, and only remove something that is actually a symlink (or a > >>>> junction point, which is more or less the same thing)? > >>> > >>> We can do that way and for that I think we need to use rmdir > >>> instead of rmtree in the code being discussed (recovery path), > >>> OTOH we should try to minimize the errors raised during > >>> recovery. > >> > >> I'm not sure I understand this issue in detail, but why would using > >> rmtree() on something you expect to be a symlink ever be a good idea? > >> It seems like if things are the way you expect them to be, it has no > >> benefit, but if they are different from what you expect, you might > >> blow away a ton of important data. > >> > >> Maybe I am just confused. > >> > > > > > > The suggestion is to get rid of using rmtree. Instead, if we find a non-symlink in pg_tblspc we'll make the user clean it up before we can continue. So your instinct is in tune with my suggestion. > > > > Find the patch which gets rid of rmtree usage. I have made it as > a separate function because the same code is used from > create_tablespace_directories() as well. I thought of extending the > same API for using it from destroy_tablespace_directories() as well, > but due to special handling (especially for ENOENT) in that function, > I left it as of now. >
Does it make sense to track this in 9.5 Open Items [1]? [1] - https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.5_Open_Items With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
