On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 10:32 PM Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 5/26/21 2:43 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-05-26 at 08:57 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 03:17:37PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>> If we do decide to do something the question arises what sho
On 5/26/21 2:43 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-05-26 at 08:57 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 03:17:37PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> If we do decide to do something the question arises what should it do?
>>> If we're to allow for it I'm wondering if the best
On Wed, 2021-05-26 at 08:57 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 03:17:37PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > If we do decide to do something the question arises what should it do?
> > If we're to allow for it I'm wondering if the best thing would be simply
> > to ignore such a fi
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 03:17:37PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> If we do decide to do something the question arises what should it do?
> If we're to allow for it I'm wondering if the best thing would be simply
> to ignore such a file.
Enforcing assumptions that any file could be ready-only is a
On 5/25/21 10:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> Perhaps we should add that read-only files can be particularly problematic.
> Given the (legitimate, IMO) example of a read-only SSL key, I'm not
> quite convinced that pg_rewind doesn't need to cope with this.
>
>
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> Perhaps we should add that read-only files can be particularly problematic.
Given the (legitimate, IMO) example of a read-only SSL key, I'm not
quite convinced that pg_rewind doesn't need to cope with this.
regards, tom lane
On 5/25/21 9:38 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-05-25 at 16:57 +0800, Paul Guo wrote:
>>> You seem to have missed my point completely. The answer to this problem
>>> IMNSHO is "Don't put a read-only file in the data directory".
>> Oh sorry. Well, if we really do not want this we may want t
On Tue, 2021-05-25 at 16:57 +0800, Paul Guo wrote:
> > You seem to have missed my point completely. The answer to this problem
> > IMNSHO is "Don't put a read-only file in the data directory".
>
> Oh sorry. Well, if we really do not want this we may want to document this
> and keep educating users
> You seem to have missed my point completely. The answer to this problem
> IMNSHO is "Don't put a read-only file in the data directory".
Oh sorry. Well, if we really do not want this we may want to document this
and keep educating users, but meanwhile probably the product should be
more user frie
On 5/20/21 6:17 AM, Paul Guo wrote:
>> Presumably the user has a reason for adding the file read-only to the
>> data directory, and we shouldn't lightly ignore that.
>>
>> Michael's advice is reasonable. This seems like a case of:
> I agree. Attached is a short patch to handle the case. The patch
> Presumably the user has a reason for adding the file read-only to the
> data directory, and we shouldn't lightly ignore that.
>
> Michael's advice is reasonable. This seems like a case of:
I agree. Attached is a short patch to handle the case. The patch was
tested in my dev environment.
v1-000
On 5/19/21 6:43 AM, Paul Guo wrote:
> Several weeks ago I saw this issue in a production environment. The
> read only file looks like a credential file. Michael told me that
> usually such kinds of files should be better kept in non-pgdata
> directories in production environments. Thought further
12 matches
Mail list logo
