On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 14:16:56 +0900
Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes:
> >> On 11/20/2015 2:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> It'd be reasonable to skip 'em if we can identify 'em reliably. I'm
> >>> not sure how reliably we can do that though.
> >
> >> aren't they nearly always named 'core' ?
> >
> > No. Modern systems more often call them something like 'core.<pid>'.
> > What really makes it messy is that the name is user-configurable on
> > most Linux kernels, see /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern.
> >
> > We could probably get away with excluding anything that matches "*core*",
> > but it wouldn't be bulletproof.
>
> It does not look like a good idea to me. I have no doubts that there
> are deployments including configuration files with such abbreviations
> in PGDATA.
Perhaps matching *core* and size > 100MB or so would cover that.
-dg
--
David Gould 510 282 0869 daveg@sonic.net
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.
