On 3/19/21 7:16 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Thanks Justin and David. Replies to two emails inline:
>
> Fair point. Here's what I went with:
>
> When set to <literal>fsync</literal>, which is the default,
> <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> will recursively open and
> synchronize all files in the data directory before crash
> recovery
> begins. The search for files will follow symbolic links for the WAL
> directory and each configured tablespace (but not any other symbolic
> links).
>
+1
> I thought about adding some text along the lines that such symlinks
> are not expected, but I think you're right that what we really need is
> a good place to point to. I mean, generally you can't mess around
> with the files managed by PostgreSQL and expect everything to keep
> working correctly
WRT to symlinks I'm not sure that's fair to say. From PG's perspective
it's just a dir/file after all. Other than pg_wal I have seen
pg_stat/pg_stat_tmp sometimes symlinked, plus config files, and the log dir.
pgBackRest takes a pretty liberal approach here. Were preserve all
dir/file symlinks no matter where they appear and allow all of them to
be remapped on restore.
> but it wouldn't hurt to make an explicit statement
> about symlinks and where they're allowed (or maybe there is one
> already and I failed to find it).
I couldn't find it either and I would be in favor of it. For instance,
pgBackRest forbids tablespaces inside PGDATA and when people complain
(more often then you might imagine) we can just point to the code/docs.
> There are hints though, like
> pg_basebackup's documentation which tells you it won't follow or
> preserve them in general, but... hmm, it also contemplates various
> special subdirectories (pg_dynshmem, pg_notify, pg_replslot, ...) that
> might be symlinks without saying why.
Right, pg_dynshmem is another one that I've seen symlinked. Some things
are nice to have on fast storage. pg_notify and pg_replslot are similar
since they get written to a lot in certain configurations.
>> It worries me that this needs to be explicitly "turned off" after the
>> initial recovery. Seems like something of a foot gun.
>>
>> Since we have not offered this functionality before I'm not sure we
>> should rush to introduce it now. For backup solutions that do their own
>> syncing, syncfs() should provide excellent performance so long as the
>> file system is not shared, which is something the user can control (and
>> is noted in the docs).
>
> Thanks. I'm leaving the 0002 patch "on ice" until someone can explain
> how you're supposed to use it without putting a hole in your foot.
+1
> (One silly thing I noticed is that our comments generally think
> "filesystem" is one word, but our documentation always has a space;
> this patch followed the local convention in both cases!)
Personally I prefer "file system".
Regards,
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net
