On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Well, it's *very* unlikely that the slave server would have permissions
> to create in the root directory or close to it. If you grant that it's
> reasonable to create the location directory itself, why not the parent
> too, if that's still in a directory that's writable? I agree that the
> reasonableness of the behavior drops off the more you go up, but so does
> the probability of having the needed permissions. I don't agree that
> it's a binary choice where creating exactly one directory is reasonable
> but exactly two isn't.
I'm just giving you my opinion. Take it for what it's worth. :-)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company