On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Amit Kapila <
amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Andrew Dunstan <
andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 05/14/2015 10:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Amit Kapila <
amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 2:10 AM, Andrew Dunstan <
andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> How about if we simply abort if we find a non-symlink where we want the
> >>>> symlink to be, and only remove something that is actually a symlink (or a
> >>>> junction point, which is more or less the same thing)?
> >>>
> >>> We can do that way and for that I think we need to use rmdir
> >>> instead of rmtree in the code being discussed (recovery path),
> >>> OTOH we should try to minimize the errors raised during
> >>> recovery.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure I understand this issue in detail, but why would using
> >> rmtree() on something you expect to be a symlink ever be a good idea?
> >> It seems like if things are the way you expect them to be, it has no
> >> benefit, but if they are different from what you expect, you might
> >> blow away a ton of important data.
> >>
> >> Maybe I am just confused.
> >>
> >
> >
> > The suggestion is to get rid of using rmtree. Instead, if we find a non-symlink in pg_tblspc we'll make the user clean it up before we can continue. So your instinct is in tune with my suggestion.
> >
>
> Find the patch which gets rid of rmtree usage. I have made it as
> a separate function because the same code is used from
> create_tablespace_directories() as well. I thought of extending the
> same API for using it from destroy_tablespace_directories() as well,
> but due to special handling (especially for ENOENT) in that function,
> I left it as of now.
>
Does it make sense to track this in 9.5 Open Items [1]?