On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote:
>> At the risk of stating the obvious, ISTM that the right way to do
>> this, at a high level, is to err on the side of unneeded extra
>> unlink() calls, not leaking files. And, to make the window for problem
>> ("remaining hole that you haven't quite managed to plug") practically
>> indistinguishable from no hole at all, in a way that's kind of baked
>> into the API.
>
> I do not think there should be any reason why we can't get the
> resource accounting exactly correct here. If a single backend manages
> to remove every temporary file that it creates exactly once (and
> that's currently true, modulo system crashes), a group of cooperating
> backends ought to be able to manage to remove every temporary file
> that any of them create exactly once (again, modulo system crashes).
I believe that we are fully in agreement here. In particular, I think
it's bad that there is an API that says "caller shouldn't throw an
elog error between these two points", and that will be fixed before
too long. I just think that it's worth acknowledging a certain nuance.
> I do agree that a duplicate unlink() call isn't as bad as a missing
> unlink() call, at least if there's no possibility that the filename
> could have been reused by some other process, or some other part of
> our own process, which doesn't want that new file unlinked. But it's
> messy. If the seatbelts in your car were to randomly unbuckle, that
> would be a safety hazard. If they were to randomly refuse to
> unbuckle, you wouldn't say "that's OK because it's not a safety
> hazard", you'd say "these seatbelts are badly designed". And I think
> the same is true of this mechanism.
If it happened in the lifetime of only one out of a million seatbelts
manufactured, and they were manufactured at a competitive price (not
over-engineered), I probably wouldn't say that. The fact that the
existing resource manger code only LOGs most temp file related
failures suggests to me that that's a "can't happen" condition, but we
still hedge. I would still like to hedge against even (theoretically)
impossible risks.
Maybe I'm just being pedantic here, since we both actually want the
code to do the same thing.
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
