On 6/3/16 4:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> On 2016-06-03 14:00:00 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >>>> I'm not convinced of that. Hiding unexpected issues for longer, just to >>>> continue kind-of-operating, can make the impact of problems a lot worse, >>>> and it makes it very hard to actually learn about the issues. >>> >>> So if we made this a WARNING rather than an ERROR, it wouldn't hiding >>> the issue, but it would be less likely to break things that worked >>> before. No? >> >> Except that we're then accepting the (proven!) potential for data >> loss. We're talking about a single report of an restore_command setting >> odd permissions. Which can easily be fixed. > > Well, I think that having restore_command start failing after a minor > release update can cause data loss, too. Or even an outage.
I'm mostly with Andres on this but you do make a good point, Robert. Andres, what if on EPERM you set write privs on the file and retry? Maybe only back patch that change and for 9.6 expect restore_command scripts to set sane permissions. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
