Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 20:03:07 +0100
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>,
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and
 discussion)
Message-ID: <202203211903.ni5vfpmyelk7@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoZ2B=s+9UKmxeNCEkV0Yu7X35NbeAc1TaCKvXRMDe=CbA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202203211903.ni5vfpmyelk7%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-Mar-14, Robert Haas wrote:

> 2. Why not instead change the code so that the operation can succeed,
> by creating the prerequisite parent directories? Do we not have enough
> information for that? I'm not saying that we definitely should do it
> that way rather than this way, but I think we do take that approach in
> some cases.

It seems we can choose freely between these two implementations -- I
mean I don't see any upsides or downsides to either one.

The current one has the advantage that it never makes the datadir
"dirty", to use Kyotaro's term.  It verifies that the creation/drop form
a pair.  A possible downside is that if there's a bug, we could end up
with a spurious PANIC at the end of recovery, and no way to recover.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/