Re: CREATE DATABASE vs delayed table unlink - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: CREATE DATABASE vs delayed table unlink
Date
Msg-id 48EDDF2E.7080909@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to CREATE DATABASE vs delayed table unlink  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: CREATE DATABASE vs delayed table unlink
List pgsql-hackers
Matthew Wakeling wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>>> Another thought is to ignore ENOENT in copydir.
> 
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I thought about that too, but it seems extremely dangerous ...
> 
> I agree. If a file randomly goes missing, that's not an error to ignore, 
> even if you think the only way that could happen is safe.

I committed a patch to do a full-blown checkpoint before the copy. 
Annoying to do two checkpoints, but CREATE DATABASE is a pretty 
heavy-weight operation anyway. I don't see any other solution at the 
moment, at least not one that we could back-patch.

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: CREATE DATABASE vs delayed table unlink
Next
From: ITAGAKI Takahiro
Date:
Subject: Re: [WIP] Reduce alignment requirements on 64-bit systems.