Обсуждение: tablespaces inside $PGDATA considered harmful
I think everyone who has read this mailing list for a while is probably already aware of this problem. When you create a tablespace somewhere inside the data directory, weird things happen. If you pg_upgrade and then incautiously run the delete_old_cluster.sh script thus created, you will blow away large chunks of your data.[1] If you try to use pg_basebackup, it will back up your data twice and maybe throw some warnings.[2] You can also induce pg_database_size() to give wrong results --- it'll count pg_tblspace/$TABLESPACE_OID as well as pg_tblspace/some-stupid-tablespace-name, the former being a symlink to the latter. Given all this, it seems like a good idea to at least give a warning if somebody tries to create a tablespace instead the data directory. Arguably, we should prohibit it altogether, but there are obviously people that want to do it, and there could even be somewhat valid reasons for that, like wanting to set per-tablespace settings differently for different tablespaces. Possibly we should prohibit it anyway, or maybe there should be an option to create a tablespace whose directory is a real directory, not a symlink. So then: CREATE TABLESPACE foo LOCATION '/home/rhaas/pgdata/pg_tblspc/foo'; ...would fail, but if you really want a separate tablespace inside the data directory, we could allow: CREATE TABLESPACE foo NO LOCATION; ...which would just create a bare directory where the symlink would normally go. In the short term, I favor just adding a warning, so that people get some clue that they are doing something that might be a bad idea. In the long term, we might want to do more. Thoughts? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/B6F6FD62F2624C4C9916AC0175D56D880CE46DB7@jenmbs01.ad.intershop.net [2] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevExkhE+KcQa+fLUeaizP5i5QVCnNjZ2j0ZZQcaMJFheQDw@mail.gmail.com
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:12:43AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think everyone who has read this mailing list for a while is
> probably already aware of this problem. When you create a tablespace
> somewhere inside the data directory, weird things happen. If you
> pg_upgrade and then incautiously run the delete_old_cluster.sh script
> thus created, you will blow away large chunks of your data.[1] If you
pg_upgrade doesn't create the deletion script in this case, and warns
the user:
Could not create a script to delete the old cluster's data files because user-defined tablespaces exist in
theold cluster directory. The old cluster's contents must be deleted manually.
> In the short term, I favor just adding a warning, so that people get
> some clue that they are doing something that might be a bad idea. In
> the long term, we might want to do more. Thoughts?
Yes, good idea.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
On 01/30/2015 08:19 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:12:43AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> I think everyone who has read this mailing list for a while is >> probably already aware of this problem. When you create a tablespace >> somewhere inside the data directory, weird things happen. If you >> pg_upgrade and then incautiously run the delete_old_cluster.sh script >> thus created, you will blow away large chunks of your data.[1] If you > > pg_upgrade doesn't create the deletion script in this case, and warns > the user: > > Could not create a script to delete the old cluster's data > files because user-defined tablespaces exist in the old cluster > directory. The old cluster's contents must be deleted manually. > >> In the short term, I favor just adding a warning, so that people get >> some clue that they are doing something that might be a bad idea. In >> the long term, we might want to do more. Thoughts? > > Yes, good idea. Uhm, wouldn't it be a rather simple patch to say: if tablespace_create() in $PGDATA: ERROR! ? I mean yes a warning is good but it is after the fact, the tablespace is already created. We know that tablespaces in $PGDATA are a bad idea, why not protect the user? JD > -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development High Availability, Oracle Conversion, @cmdpromptinc "If we send our children to Caesar for their education, we should not be surprised when they come back as Romans."
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > I mean yes a warning is good but it is after the fact, the tablespace is > already created. We know that tablespaces in $PGDATA are a bad idea, why not > protect the user? Please go back and read the discussion of that option in the OP. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 1/30/15 11:43 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 01/30/2015 08:19 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:12:43AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >>> I think everyone who has read this mailing list for a while is >>> probably already aware of this problem. When you create a tablespace >>> somewhere inside the data directory, weird things happen. If you >>> pg_upgrade and then incautiously run the delete_old_cluster.sh script >>> thus created, you will blow away large chunks of your data.[1] If you >> >> pg_upgrade doesn't create the deletion script in this case, and warns >> the user: >> >> Could not create a script to delete the old cluster's data >> files because user-defined tablespaces exist in the old cluster >> directory. The old cluster's contents must be deleted >> manually. >> >>> In the short term, I favor just adding a warning, so that people get >>> some clue that they are doing something that might be a bad idea. In >>> the long term, we might want to do more. Thoughts? >> >> Yes, good idea. > > Uhm, wouldn't it be a rather simple patch to say: > > if tablespace_create() in $PGDATA: > ERROR! > > ? > > I mean yes a warning is good but it is after the fact, the tablespace > is already created. We know that tablespaces in $PGDATA are a bad > idea, why not protect the user? I would be in favor of an error. It would then be OK for basebackup, pg_upgrade, and friends to error when a tablespace lives in $PGDATA, rather than trying to deal with the situation in strange ways. If the user really wants tablespaces in $PGDATA they can always change the links manually in the filesystem and deal with any consequences on their own. -- - David Steele david@pgmasters.net
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> Given all this, it seems like a good idea to at least give a warning
> if somebody tries to create a tablespace instead the data directory.
A warning seems like a good idea. I actually thought we *did* prevent
it..
> Arguably, we should prohibit it altogether, but there are obviously
> people that want to do it, and there could even be somewhat valid
> reasons for that, like wanting to set per-tablespace settings
> differently for different tablespaces. Possibly we should prohibit it
> anyway, or maybe there should be an option to create a tablespace
> whose directory is a real directory, not a symlink. So then:
>
> CREATE TABLESPACE foo LOCATION '/home/rhaas/pgdata/pg_tblspc/foo';
>
> ...would fail, but if you really want a separate tablespace inside the
> data directory, we could allow:
>
> CREATE TABLESPACE foo NO LOCATION;
>
> ...which would just create a bare directory where the symlink would normally go.
I actually really like this 'NO LOCATION' idea. Are there reasons why
that would be difficult or ill-advised to do?
I could see the NO LOCATION approach being useful for migrating between
systems, in particular, or a way to have pg_basebackup work that doesn't
involve having to actually map all the tablespaces...
Thanks!
Stephen
Robert Haas wrote > Arguably, we should prohibit it altogether, but there are obviously > people that want to do it, and there could even be somewhat valid > reasons for that, Lots of hand-waving here and it is just as likely they simply are not aware of the downsides and the only reason they put it is $PGDATA is that it seemed like a logical place to put a directory that is intended to hold database data. > like wanting to set per-tablespace settings differently for different > tablespaces. I do not follow where this has anything to do with the location of the physical tablespace directory? > Possibly we should prohibit it > anyway, or maybe there should be an option to create a tablespace > whose directory is a real directory, not a symlink. So then: > > CREATE TABLESPACE foo LOCATION '/home/rhaas/pgdata/pg_tblspc/foo'; > > ...would fail, but if you really want a separate tablespace inside the > data directory, we could allow: > > CREATE TABLESPACE foo NO LOCATION; > > ...which would just create a bare directory where the symlink would > normally go. CREATE TABLE foo LOCATION INTERNAL The creators of tablespaces seem to have envisioned their usage as a means of pulling in disparate file systems and not simply for namespaces within the main filesystem that $PGDATA exists on. This seems arbitrary and while the internal location specification likely doesn't buy one much in terms of real options it doesn't seem like it has any serious downsides either. > In the short term, I favor just adding a warning, so that people get > some clue that they are doing something that might be a bad idea. In > the long term, we might want to do more. Thoughts? If this is intended to be back-patched then I'd go with just a warning. If this is strictly 9.5 material then I'd say that since our own tools behave badly in the current situation we should simply outright disallow it. In either case we should consider what tools we can provide to detect the now-illegal configuration and, during pg_upgrade, configure the new cluster to adhere to the correct configuration or help the user migrate their internalized tablespaces to a different part of their filesystem. Writing this I ponder the situation that someone would mount a different file system directly under $PGDATA so that they get both benefits - single parent and the different properties of the filesystems they are using. If we force "Internal" to be in the same location as the default tablespace we only accomplish half of their goals. David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/tablespaces-inside-PGDATA-considered-harmful-tp5836161p5836180.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 01/30/2015 09:19 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote: >> Given all this, it seems like a good idea to at least give a warning >> if somebody tries to create a tablespace instead the data directory. > > A warning seems like a good idea. I actually thought we *did* prevent > it.. > >> Arguably, we should prohibit it altogether, but there are obviously >> people that want to do it, and there could even be somewhat valid >> reasons for that, like wanting to set per-tablespace settings >> differently for different tablespaces. Possibly we should prohibit it >> anyway, or maybe there should be an option to create a tablespace >> whose directory is a real directory, not a symlink. So then: >> >> CREATE TABLESPACE foo LOCATION '/home/rhaas/pgdata/pg_tblspc/foo'; >> >> ...would fail, but if you really want a separate tablespace inside the >> data directory, we could allow: >> >> CREATE TABLESPACE foo NO LOCATION; >> >> ...which would just create a bare directory where the symlink would normally go. > > I actually really like this 'NO LOCATION' idea. Are there reasons why > that would be difficult or ill-advised to do? > > I could see the NO LOCATION approach being useful for migrating between > systems, in particular, or a way to have pg_basebackup work that doesn't > involve having to actually map all the tablespaces... I like this idea too. And it would make tablespaces more manageable for people who are using them for reasons other than putting them on different disks. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
Robert, Stephen, etc.: Apparently you can create a tablespace in the tablespace directory: josh=# create tablespace tbl location '/home/josh/pg94/data/pg_tblspc/'; CREATE TABLESPACE josh=# create table test_tbl ( test text ) tablespace tbl; CREATE TABLE josh=# \q josh@Radegast:~/pg94/data/pg_tblspc$ ls 17656 PG_9.4_201409291 josh@Radegast:~/pg94/data/pg_tblspc$ ls -l total 4 lrwxrwxrwx 1 josh josh 30 Jan 30 13:02 17656 -> /home/josh/pg94/data/pg_tblspc drwx------ 3 josh josh 4096 Jan 30 13:02 PG_9.4_201409291 josh@Radegast:~/pg94/data/pg_tblspc$ In theory if I could guess the next OID, I could cause a failure there, but that appears to be obscure enough to be not worth bothering about. What is a real problem is that we don't block creating tablespaces anywhere at all, including in obviously problematic places like the transaction log directory: josh=# create tablespace tbl2 location '/home/josh/pg94/data/pg_xlog/'; CREATE TABLESPACE It really seems like we ought to block *THAT*. Of course, if we block tablespace creation in PGDATA generally, then that's covered. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
> it is just as likely they simply are not aware > of the downsides and the only reason they put it is $PGDATA is that > it seemed like a logical place to put a directory that is intended to hold > database data. Yes, this is the reason why we got in this issue. The name PGDATA is misleading. > The creators of tablespaces seem to have envisioned their usage as a means > of pulling in disparate file systems and not simply for namespaces within the main > filesystem that $PGDATA exists on. true too. We have a lot of tablespaces. I'd probably won't go that way by now, but it still has the advantage to help quicklymove parts of the data to manage filesystem usage. > Given all this, it seems like a good idea to at least give a warning > if somebody tries to create a tablespace instead the data directory. IMHO the first place to put a warning is within the documentation:http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/interactive/manage-ag-tablespaces.htmlandpossibly a crosslink in http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/interactive/sql-createtablespace.html >If this is intended to be back-patched then I'd go with just a warning. If >this is strictly 9.5 material then I'd say that since our own tools behave >badly in the current situation we should simply outright disallow it. We have a lot of maintenance scripts that rely on our architecture ($PGDADAT -> symlinks -> tablespace locations). We already made a quick evaluation on how to fix this, but gave it up for now due to the work amount. So please be cautious about disallowing it too abruptly. Back-patching a change that disallow our current architecture could prevent us to apply minor releases for a while... regards, Marc Mamin
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 01:26:22PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > Robert, Stephen, etc.: > > Apparently you can create a tablespace in the tablespace directory: > > josh=# create tablespace tbl location '/home/josh/pg94/data/pg_tblspc/'; > CREATE TABLESPACE > josh=# create table test_tbl ( test text ) tablespace tbl; > CREATE TABLE > josh=# \q > josh@Radegast:~/pg94/data/pg_tblspc$ ls > 17656 PG_9.4_201409291 > josh@Radegast:~/pg94/data/pg_tblspc$ ls -l > total 4 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 josh josh 30 Jan 30 13:02 17656 -> > /home/josh/pg94/data/pg_tblspc > drwx------ 3 josh josh 4096 Jan 30 13:02 PG_9.4_201409291 > josh@Radegast:~/pg94/data/pg_tblspc$ > > In theory if I could guess the next OID, I could cause a failure there, > but that appears to be obscure enough to be not worth bothering about. > > What is a real problem is that we don't block creating tablespaces > anywhere at all, including in obviously problematic places like the > transaction log directory: > > josh=# create tablespace tbl2 location '/home/josh/pg94/data/pg_xlog/'; > CREATE TABLESPACE > > It really seems like we ought to block *THAT*. Of course, if we block > tablespace creation in PGDATA generally, then that's covered. I have developed the attached patch to warn about creating tablespaces inside the data directory. The case this doesn't catch is referencing a symbolic link that points to the same directory. We can't make it an error so people can use pg_upgrade these setups. This would be for 9.5 only. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +
Вложения
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> What is a real problem is that we don't block creating tablespaces >> anywhere at all, including in obviously problematic places like the >> transaction log directory: >> >> josh=# create tablespace tbl2 location '/home/josh/pg94/data/pg_xlog/'; >> CREATE TABLESPACE >> >> It really seems like we ought to block *THAT*. Of course, if we block >> tablespace creation in PGDATA generally, then that's covered. > > I have developed the attached patch to warn about creating tablespaces > inside the data directory. The case this doesn't catch is referencing a > symbolic link that points to the same directory. We can't make it an > error so people can use pg_upgrade these setups. This would be for 9.5 > only. I think this is a good thing to do, but I sure wish we could go further and block it completely. That may require more thought than we have time to put in at this stage of the release cycle, though, so +1 for doing at least this much. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:13:52AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > >> What is a real problem is that we don't block creating tablespaces > >> anywhere at all, including in obviously problematic places like the > >> transaction log directory: > >> > >> josh=# create tablespace tbl2 location '/home/josh/pg94/data/pg_xlog/'; > >> CREATE TABLESPACE > >> > >> It really seems like we ought to block *THAT*. Of course, if we block > >> tablespace creation in PGDATA generally, then that's covered. > > > > I have developed the attached patch to warn about creating tablespaces > > inside the data directory. The case this doesn't catch is referencing a > > symbolic link that points to the same directory. We can't make it an > > error so people can use pg_upgrade these setups. This would be for 9.5 > > only. > > I think this is a good thing to do, but I sure wish we could go > further and block it completely. That may require more thought than > we have time to put in at this stage of the release cycle, though, so > +1 for doing at least this much. OK, good. Thinking to 9.6, I am not sure how we could throw an error because we have allowed this in the past and pg_dump is going to be restored with a raw SQL CREATE TABLESPACE command. We have had this type of problem before, but never resolved it. We almost need pg_dump to set a GUC variable telling the backend it is restoring a dump and issue a warning, but throw an error if the same command was issued outside of a pg_dump restore. FYI, pg_upgrade already throws a warning related to the non-creation of a delete script. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +
On 2015-04-23 11:00:43 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:13:52AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > I think this is a good thing to do, but I sure wish we could go > > further and block it completely. That may require more thought than > > we have time to put in at this stage of the release cycle, though, so > > +1 for doing at least this much. > > OK, good. Thinking to 9.6, I am not sure how we could throw an error > because we have allowed this in the past and pg_dump is going to be > restored with a raw SQL CREATE TABLESPACE command. We could just document that you need to pre-create the tablespace and ignore the resulting error. This isn't going to affect too many people. Greetings, Andres Freund
On 4/22/15 9:41 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > The case this doesn't catch is referencing a > symbolic link that points to the same directory. We can't make it an > error so people can use pg_upgrade these setups. Couldn't we make it an ERROR unless IsBinaryUpgrade? -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 05:05:14PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-04-23 11:00:43 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:13:52AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > I think this is a good thing to do, but I sure wish we could go > > > further and block it completely. That may require more thought than > > > we have time to put in at this stage of the release cycle, though, so > > > +1 for doing at least this much. > > > > OK, good. Thinking to 9.6, I am not sure how we could throw an error > > because we have allowed this in the past and pg_dump is going to be > > restored with a raw SQL CREATE TABLESPACE command. > > We could just document that you need to pre-create the tablespace and > ignore the resulting error. This isn't going to affect too many people. This approach is going to cause any object in that tablespace to not restore --- are we sure that enough people check for restore errors that we will not have people losing data on a restore? Also, the error is going to cause pg_upgrade to fail. We could have pg_upgrade --check detect these cases and force people to fix their setups before they run pg_upgrade --- at least that would be consistent with the pg_dump behavior. Jim Nasby suggested throwing an error unless IsBinaryUpgrade is set, and that would work, but it means we are allowing such tablespaces to be upgraded using pg_upgrade only, which seems kind of odd. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +
On April 23, 2015 6:12:05 PM GMT+03:00, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com> wrote: >On 4/22/15 9:41 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> The case this doesn't catch is referencing a >> symbolic link that points to the same directory. We can't make it an >> error so people can use pg_upgrade these setups. > >Couldn't we make it an ERROR unless IsBinaryUpgrade? People still upgrade without pg upgrade. Andres --- Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> > I have developed the attached patch to warn about creating tablespaces >> > inside the data directory. The case this doesn't catch is referencing a >> > symbolic link that points to the same directory. We can't make it an >> > error so people can use pg_upgrade these setups. This would be for 9.5 >> > only. >> >> I think this is a good thing to do, but I sure wish we could go >> further and block it completely. That may require more thought than >> we have time to put in at this stage of the release cycle, though, so >> +1 for doing at least this much. > > OK, good. Thinking to 9.6, I am not sure how we could throw an error > because we have allowed this in the past and pg_dump is going to be > restored with a raw SQL CREATE TABLESPACE command. > > We have had this type of problem before, but never resolved it. We > almost need pg_dump to set a GUC variable telling the backend it is > restoring a dump and issue a warning, but throw an error if the same > command was issued outside of a pg_dump restore. FYI, pg_upgrade > already throws a warning related to the non-creation of a delete script. Well, we've made backward-incompatible changes before. Not to this specific thing, but in general. I don't think there's anything preventing us from doing so here, except that we don't want to annoy too many users. I don't think the right solution is to add a GUC so that pg_dump ignores this, and otherwise deny it. It's bad if you do it as part of a restore, and it's bad if you do it some other time, too. What I'd recommend is that we add a GUC stupid_tablespaces=off. If you have done this in the past, and you want to upgrade (whether via pg_dump or pg_upgrade) to a new release, you'll have to configure the new cluster for stupid_tablespaces=on. If you don't, you'll get an error. If you do, you'll get a warning. That way, people can still upgrade, but they have to set the GUC to make it work, so they'll be clearly aware that they're doing something that is not recommended. (Of course we might want to call the GUC something like other than stupid_tablespaces, like allow_tablespaces_in_data_directory, but you get the idea.) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 2015-04-23 15:46:20 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > Well, we've made backward-incompatible changes before. Not to this > specific thing, but in general. I don't think there's anything > preventing us from doing so here, except that we don't want to annoy > too many users. I think the number of users that have done this, and haven't yet (knowing or unknowningly) been bitten by it is pretty low. In that scenario it seems much better to break compatibility given that it's pretty easy to fix during restore (just precreate the tablespace). It's not something you have to retest a whole application for. If you want to avoid that one error you can still do pg_dumpall --globals, edit and run that script, and only then restore the the actual databases. Greetings, Andres Freund
On 4/23/15 11:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On April 23, 2015 6:12:05 PM GMT+03:00, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com> wrote: >> On 4/22/15 9:41 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> The case this doesn't catch is referencing a >>> symbolic link that points to the same directory. We can't make it an >>> error so people can use pg_upgrade these setups. >> >> Couldn't we make it an ERROR unless IsBinaryUpgrade? > > People still upgrade without pg upgrade. Yes, but only after creating a brand new cluster from scratch, which would then disallow them from putting tablespaces in $PGDATA. Or are you saying people do binary upgrades without pg_upgrade? I don't think we have any obligation to support that... -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
On 2015-04-23 15:17:55 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: > Yes, but only after creating a brand new cluster from scratch, which would > then disallow them from putting tablespaces in $PGDATA. pg_dumpall output includes tablespaces.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-04-23 15:46:20 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Well, we've made backward-incompatible changes before. Not to this >> specific thing, but in general. I don't think there's anything >> preventing us from doing so here, except that we don't want to annoy >> too many users. > > I think the number of users that have done this, and haven't yet > (knowing or unknowningly) been bitten by it is pretty low. In that > scenario it seems much better to break compatibility given that it's > pretty easy to fix during restore (just precreate the tablespace). It's > not something you have to retest a whole application for. > > If you want to avoid that one error you can still do pg_dumpall > --globals, edit and run that script, and only then restore the the > actual databases. But pg_upgrade automates all that, so you can't use pg_upgrade in that case. If we add a GUC as I suggested, you can still use pg_upgrade. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 2015-04-23 16:26:09 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > But pg_upgrade automates all that, so you can't use pg_upgrade in that > case. If we add a GUC as I suggested, you can still use pg_upgrade. But we also have to live with data directories being in a shit state forever onward. We won't really be able to remove the option realistically. It's not that hard to just move the tablespace out of the data directory while the server. As long as you move it on the same partition, it's even fast. Greetings, Andres Freund
On 4/23/15 4:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-04-23 16:26:09 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> But pg_upgrade automates all that, so you can't use pg_upgrade in that >> case. If we add a GUC as I suggested, you can still use pg_upgrade. > > But we also have to live with data directories being in a shit state > forever onward. We won't really be able to remove the option > realistically. > > It's not that hard to just move the tablespace out of the data directory > while the server. As long as you move it on the same partition, it's > even fast. I agree. It wouldn't be that hard to do a bit of directory manipulation before upgrading - and that's only for the people who have put tablespaces in $PGDATA. I've never seen it before, but I have no doubt that it happens. I can see how it might make a weird sort of sense depending on the level of experience. -- - David Steele david@pgmasters.net
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-04-23 16:26:09 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> But pg_upgrade automates all that, so you can't use pg_upgrade in that >> case. If we add a GUC as I suggested, you can still use pg_upgrade. > > But we also have to live with data directories being in a shit state > forever onward. We won't really be able to remove the option > realistically. > > It's not that hard to just move the tablespace out of the data directory > while the server. As long as you move it on the same partition, it's > even fast. OK, fair point. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:41:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > josh=# create tablespace tbl2 location '/home/josh/pg94/data/pg_xlog/'; > > CREATE TABLESPACE > > > > It really seems like we ought to block *THAT*. Of course, if we block > > tablespace creation in PGDATA generally, then that's covered. > > I have developed the attached patch to warn about creating tablespaces > inside the data directory. The case this doesn't catch is referencing a > symbolic link that points to the same directory. We can't make it an > error so people can use pg_upgrade these setups. This would be for 9.5 > only. OK, based on later discussions, I have updated my 9.5 patch to have pg_upgrade also display a warning (the warning will also appear in the pg_upgrade logs, but I doubt the user will see it), e.g.: Setting next OID for new cluster okSync data directory to disk okCreating script to analyze new cluster okWARNING: user-defined tablespace locations should not beinside the data directory, e.g. /u/pgsql.old/data/pg_tblspcUpgrade Complete----------------Optimizer statistics are nottransferred by pg_upgrade so,once you start the new server, consider running: ./analyze_new_cluster.shCould not createa script to delete the old cluster's datafiles because user-defined tablespaces exist in the old clusterdirectory. The old cluster's contents must be deleted manually. This way, both pg_dump and pg_upgrade will issue warnings, though, of course, those warnings can be ignored. I am hopeful these two warnings will be sufficient and we will not need make these errors, with the possible inconvenience it will cause. I am still afraid that someone will ignore the new errors pg_dump would generate and lose data. I just don't remember enough cases where we threw new errors on _data_ restore. Frankly, those using pg_upgrade already will have to move the old tablespaces out of the old cluster if they ever want to delete those clusters, so I am hopeful these additional warnings will help eliminate this practice, which is already cumbersome and useless. I am not planning to revisit this for 9.6. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 01:05:03PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > This way, both pg_dump and pg_upgrade will issue warnings, though, of > course, those warnings can be ignored. I am hopeful these two warnings > will be sufficient and we will not need make these errors, with the > possible inconvenience it will cause. I am still afraid that someone > will ignore the new errors pg_dump would generate and lose data. I just > don't remember enough cases where we threw new errors on _data_ restore. > > Frankly, those using pg_upgrade already will have to move the old > tablespaces out of the old cluster if they ever want to delete those > clusters, so I am hopeful these additional warnings will help eliminate > this practice, which is already cumbersome and useless. I am not > planning to revisit this for 9.6. Patch applied. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +
On 29/04/15 09:35, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 01:05:03PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> This way, both pg_dump and pg_upgrade will issue warnings, though, of >> course, those warnings can be ignored. I am hopeful these two warnings >> will be sufficient and we will not need make these errors, with the >> possible inconvenience it will cause. I am still afraid that someone >> will ignore the new errors pg_dump would generate and lose data. I just >> don't remember enough cases where we threw new errors on _data_ restore. >> >> Frankly, those using pg_upgrade already will have to move the old >> tablespaces out of the old cluster if they ever want to delete those >> clusters, so I am hopeful these additional warnings will help eliminate >> this practice, which is already cumbersome and useless. I am not >> planning to revisit this for 9.6. > (resurrecting an old thread) I encountered this the other day, a customer had created tablespaces with directories inside $PGDATA/pg_tblspc. This is just pathalogical - e.g (v11 checkout with PGDATA=/data0/pgdata/11): bench=# CREATE TABLESPACE space1 LOCATION '/data0/pgdata/11/pg_tblspc/space1'; WARNING: tablespace location should not be inside the data directory CREATE TABLESPACE bench=# ALTER TABLE pgbench_accounts SET TABLESPACE space1; ALTER TABLE Ok, so I've been warned: $ pg_basebackup -D . WARNING: could not read symbolic link "pg_tblspc/space1": Invalid argument pg_basebackup: directory "/data0/pgdata/11/pg_tblspc/space1" exists but is not empty pg_basebackup: removing contents of data directory "." So pg_basebackup is completely broken by this construction - should we not prohibit the creation of tablespace directories under $PGDATA (or at least $PGDATA/pg_tblspc) at this point? regards Mark -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 26/09/17 20:44, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > > > $ pg_basebackup -D . > WARNING: could not read symbolic link "pg_tblspc/space1": Invalid > argument > pg_basebackup: directory "/data0/pgdata/11/pg_tblspc/space1" exists > but is not empty > pg_basebackup: removing contents of data directory "." > Err - actually this example is wrong - sorry. In fact pg_basebackup is complaining because it does not want to overwrite the contents of the tablespace (need to use the -T option as I'm on the same host)! A correct example of pg_basebackup failing due to tablespaces inside $PGDATA/pg_tblspc can be easily demonstrated by trying to set up streaming replication on another host: $ pg_basebackup -h 10.0.119.100 -P -D . WARNING: could not read symbolic link "pg_tblspc/space1": Invalid argument pg_basebackup: could not create directory "./pg_tblspc": File exists Fortunately this can be worked around by changing to tar format: $ pg_basebackup -h 10.0.119.100 -Ft -P -D . WARNING: could not read symbolic link "pg_tblspc/space1": Invalid argument 1560632/1560632 kB (100%), 2/2 tablespaces ...however, not that great that the plain mode is busted. regards Mark -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers