| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Patrick Earl <patearl(at)patearl(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1. |
| Date: | 2007-01-11 21:19:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20070111211926.GU36267@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 03:14:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The downside of this is that a real EACCES problem wouldn't get noted at
> any level higher than LOG, and so you could theoretically lose data
> without much warning. But I'm not seeing anything else we could do
> about it --- AFAIK we have not heard of a way we can distinguish this
> case from a real permissions problem. And anyway there should never
> *be* a real permissions problem; if there is then the user's been poking
> under the hood sufficient to void the warranty anyway ;-)
Or some other "helpful" process such as a virus scanner has been poking
under the hood for you... :(
Given that this could result in data loss, if this was to be done I'd
very much want to see a way to disable it in a production environment.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeanna Geier | 2007-01-11 21:20:09 | Re: RESTORE Error |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-11 21:16:22 | Re: [HACKERS] Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-01-11 21:26:10 | Problem linking libecpg.5.3.dylib on OS X |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-11 21:16:22 | Re: [HACKERS] Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1. |