On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 07:21:27PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Agreed. The attached patch modifies pg_check_dir() to report about
> > invisible and lost+found directory entries, and give more helpful
> > messages to the user.
>
> I'm not terribly thrilled with special-casing 'lost+found' like that,
> since it's an extremely filesystem-dependent thing that even today
> probably only applies to a minority of our installed platforms.
>
> The special case for dotfiles might be useful, not because of any
> connection to mount points but just because someone might forget
> that such could be lurking in a directory that "looks empty".
I was ready to give up on this patch, but then I thought, what
percentage does lost+found and dot-file-only directories cover for mount
points? What other cases are there?
This updated version of the patch reports about dot files if they are
the _only_ files in the directory, and it suggests a top-level mount
point might be the cause.
Does this help?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
