On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> >> Robert Haas wrote:
>> >>> Perhaps we should fix the behavior rather than the documentation.
>> >
>> >> We can't fix the behavior because we have to allow an old cluster to
>> >> keep its tablespace files during a pg_upgrade. ?They are given a script
>> >> to delete those files later, if they want.
>> >
>> > The new *layout* of the files may be forced by pg_upgrade
>> > considerations, but I don't think that proves much of anything about
>> > ownership and permissions settings --- especially not the fact that we
>> > are now enforcing settings that were designed for the data directory
>> > itself on what is effectively one level up from that.
>>
>> I haven't yet been convinced we need or want to relax the rule about
>> the directory being empty.
>
> Uh, how would pg_upgrade work then? It would require renaming the
> top-level tablespace directory, which might require root permissions.
Huh? Whether or not we choose to store our data files in a
subdirectory is an independent question from whether or not we verify
that the directory is empty before we start scribbling on it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company