On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:12:03PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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?
Applied.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
