Hi, Pierre.
Maybe you're the winner:p
At Thu, 06 Apr 2017 12:34:09 +0200, Pierre Ducroquet <p.psql@pinaraf.info> wrote in <1714428.BHRm6e8A2D@peanuts2>
> On Thursday, April 6, 2017 2:00:55 PM CEST Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/manage-ag-tablespaces.html
> >
> > | The location must be an existing, empty directory that is owned
> > | by the PostgreSQL operating system user.
> >
> > This explicitly prohibits to share one tablespace directory among
> > multiple servers. The code is just missing the case of multiple
> > servers with different versions. I think the bug is rather that
> > Pg9.6 in the case allowed to create the tablespace.
> >
> > The current naming rule of tablespace directory was introduced as
> > of 9.0 so that pg_upgrade (or pg_migrator at the time) can
> > perform in-place migration. It is not intended to share a
> > directory among multiple instances with different versions.
> >
> > That being said, an additional trick in the attached file will
> > work for you.
>
> Thanks for your answer.
> Indeed, either PostgreSQL should enforce that empty folder restriction, or
> pg_basebackup should lift it and the documentation should reflect this.
That being said, it is a different matter if the behavior is
preferable. The discussion on the behavior is continued here.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170406.160844.120459562.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
> Right now, there is a conflict between pg_basebackup and the server since they
> do not allow the same behaviour. I can submit a patch either way, but I won't
> decide what is the right way to do it.
> I know tricks will allow to work around that issue, I found them hopefully and
> I guess most people affected by this issue would be able to find and use them,
> but nevertheless being able to build a server that can no longer be base-
> backuped does not seem right.
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
