Sean Chittenden <s...@chittenden.org> writes: > I agree it's not ideal for some filesystems, but being overly protective > doesn't buy us much either, because in some setups, it's entirely acceptable.
No, it isn't. As several people have told you already, the idea of letting a mount point be used directly as a data directory has been suggested repeatedly, and rejected repeatedly, and this time is not going to be any different. (Although I agree with Kevin that it's about time we documented why not to do this.) There are a couple of reasons why it's not good practice: * mount-point directories really ought to be owned by root, or at least by some user with more privilege than a DB server ought to have * without a sub-directory, there's no simple cross-check to enforce that the mount has actually happened. It's happened before that people have had a server start up against a slow-to-mount NFS directory, and then get completely confused when the mount did happen and the visible database files got replaced. (The really nasty variants of this require a startup script that will try to initdb automatically if it doesn't see a database there.) That's just what I can remember off the top of my head with insufficient caffeine. If you check the archives for previous discussions you might find some other good points. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers