On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 05:21:28AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Also googling for pg_wal, I'm finding food for thought like this > > IBM technote: > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg3T1015637 > > which recommends to > > "Remove all files under /var/lib/pgsql/9.0/data/pg_wal/" > > and also calls that directory the "write-ahead log directory" > > which is quite confusing because apparently it's the destination of > > their archive command. > > It's certainly unfortunate that people have thought that they can create > arbitrary directories under the PG data directory. That's never going > to be safe, witness that we've created new directories under PGDATA in > the last few releases and I don't see any reason why that would change > moving forward. Perhaps we should check for the existance of such a > directory during pg_upgrade and throw an error, and we should go back > and do the same for other directories which have been added over > releases, but I'm not sure I can see an argument for doing much more > than that.
Actually, pg_upgrade already checks for some odd directories stored inside of PGDATA: WARNING: new data directory should not be inside the old data directory, e.g. %s\n", old_cluster_pgdata); WARNING: user-defined tablespace locations should not be inside the data directory, e.g. %s\n", old_tablespace_dir); -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers