On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:12:03PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 07:21:27PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > > Agreed. The attached patch modifies pg_check_dir() to report about > > > invisible and lost+found directory entries, and give more helpful > > > messages to the user. > > > > I'm not terribly thrilled with special-casing 'lost+found' like that, > > since it's an extremely filesystem-dependent thing that even today > > probably only applies to a minority of our installed platforms. > > > > The special case for dotfiles might be useful, not because of any > > connection to mount points but just because someone might forget > > that such could be lurking in a directory that "looks empty". > > I was ready to give up on this patch, but then I thought, what > percentage does lost+found and dot-file-only directories cover for mount > points? What other cases are there? > > This updated version of the patch reports about dot files if they are > the _only_ files in the directory, and it suggests a top-level mount > point might be the cause. > > Does this help?
Applied. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
