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

From Matthew Wakeling
Subject Re: CREATE DATABASE vs delayed table unlink
Date
Msg-id alpine.DEB.1.10.0810091103160.15851@aragorn.flymine.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CREATE DATABASE vs delayed table unlink  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> 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 could be wrong - but couldn't other bad things happen too? If you're 
copying the files before the checkpoint has completed, couldn't the new 
database end up with some of the recent changes going missing? Or is that 
prevented by FlushDatabaseBuffers?

Matthew

-- 
Isn't "Microsoft Works" something of a contradiction?


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael.McMaster@wrsa.com.au
Date:
Subject: bytea to XML crash fix
Next
From: "Jim Cox"
Date:
Subject: TODO item: adding VERBOSE option to CLUSTER