Re: [HACKERS] Use of non-restart-safe storage by temp_tablespaces - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Use of non-restart-safe storage by temp_tablespaces
Date
Msg-id 20170530144153.GB2648@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Use of non-restart-safe storage by temp_tablespaces  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Use of non-restart-safe storage by temp_tablespaces  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 03:55:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm too lazy to search the archives right now, but there was some case
> years ago where somebody destroyed their database via an ill-thought-out
> combination of automatic-initdb-if-$PGDATA-isn't-there and slow mounting.
> We'd have to be very sure that any auto-directory-creation behavior didn't
> have a potential for that.  Perhaps doing it only for temp tablespaces
> alleviates some of the risk, but it still seems pretty scary.

Here is the Joe Conway report from 2004:
https://postgr.es/m/41BFAB7C.5040108@joeconway.com

and later references to the report from Joe Conway (2005):
https://postgr.es/m/425ABB17.305%40joeconway.com

and you (2007):
https://postgr.es/m/18897.1197775682%40sss.pgh.pa.us

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@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 +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] "cannot specify finite value after UNBOUNDED" ... uh, why?