On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> OK. Is there any value in doing mkdir -p in WAL-recovery execution of
>>> CREATE TABLESPACE but not regular execution?
>
>> I don't think so. If someone creates a directory that is not fsync'd,
>> and then creates a subdirectory and puts a tablespace on it, and then
>> crashes after this has been WAL-logged but before the directory
>> entries have hit the disk, well, unlucky for them, but that's a
>> vanishingly rare situation.
>
> I'm not really thinking about crash recovery, but replication slaves.
> Omitting to create the tablespace location directories on slaves
> doesn't seem far-fetched at all. Of course, it's likely that
> the slave server will lack permissions to create in the location
> directory's parent; but if it can, the outcome shouldn't be too
> unreasonable.
Creating the tablespace directory itself would be reasonable, but
recursing all the way up seems dubious.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
