Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: > > Excerpts from Jeff Davis's message of mar ago 09 16:03:26 -0400 2011: > >> I think I agree with Peter here that it's not a very good idea, and I > >> don't see a big upside. With tablespaces it seems to make a little bit > >> more sense, but I'd still lean away from that idea. > > > What if the init script tries to start postmaster before the filesystems > > are mounted? ISTM requiring a subdir is a good sanity check that the > > system is ready to run. Not creating stuff directly on the mountpoint > > ensures consistency. > > I went looking in the archives for previous discussions of this idea. > Most of them seem to focus on tablespaces rather than the primary data > directory, but the objections to doing it are pretty much the same
FYI, the 9.0+ code will create a subdirectory under the tablespace directory named after the catversion number, and it doesn't check that the directory is empty, particularly so pg_upgrade can do its magic. So, I believe lost+found would work in such a case, but again, the security issues are real. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
