Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 07:18:10 +0200 (CEST)
From: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>,
    =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Mikael_Kjellstr=F6m?= <mikael.kjellstrom@mksoft.nu>,
    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
    David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
    Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
    Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
    Suraj Kharage <suraj.kharage@enterprisedb.com>,
    tushar <tushar.ahuja@enterprisedb.com>,
    Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar.raghuwanshi@enterprisedb.com>,
    Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lathia@gmail.com>,
    Tels <nospam-pg-abuse@bloodgate.com>,
    PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
    Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>,
    vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: backup manifests and contemporaneous buildfarm failures
In-Reply-To: <4026.1586117546@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2004060714030.16227@pseudo>
References: 
 <CA+TgmoazJ5wh+H77kjVfMnDh6WLh=oJodrwJ21SACSq5fojwPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200403205412.GA8279@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CA+TgmoaRbm-L1C2YkDVPx1TGN9ufxWjnaweTwKE=TQC-YOD=rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoZ4bAbjd_Am=UiMpBrgPEO=7YarqvaAMrQYKP1GkkOaRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2004032346550.16227@pseudo> <22394.1585951968@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+Tgmoah0khUqHG5vn8k=LJFO0mmNLyM3HtUmh4RBkq7W2GFgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3419.1585965125@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoYR6GKr1kc4KTBwXbNChDaJX8qnx7k+KKgtNnSiFgCumA@mail.gmail.com>
 <10b8121c-faa1-66a7-4280-319b9be5cc2d@mksoft.nu>
 <95e52766-4e00-1bc7-8710-8b681760bdf4@2ndQuadrant.com>
 <4026.1586117546@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk


Hello,

>> Do I need to precede those with some recursive chmod commands? Perhaps
>> the client should refuse to run if there is still something left after
>> these.
>
> I think the latter would be a very good idea, just so that this sort of
> failure is less obscure.  Not sure about whether a recursive chmod is
> really going to be worth the cycles.  (On the other hand, the normal
> case should be that there's nothing there anyway, so maybe it's not
> going to be costly.)

Could it be a two-stage process to minimize cost but still be resilient?

   rmtree
   if (-d $DIR) {
     emit warning
     chmodtree
     rmtree again
     if (-d $DIR)
       emit error
   }

-- 
Fabien.