On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote:
> > On 06/04/2015 11:35 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> >> Theoretically, I don't see much problem by changing the checks >> way you have done in patch, but it becomes different than what >> we have in destroy_tablespace_directories() and it is slightly >> changing the way check was originally done in >> create_tablespace_directories(), basically original check will try >> unlink if lstat returns non-zero return code. If you want to proceed >> with the changed checks as in v3, then may be we can modify >> comments on top of function remove_tablespace_symlink() which >> indicates that it works like destroy_tablespace_directories(). >> >> > > The difference is that here we're getting the list from a base backup and > it seems to me the risk of having a file we don't really want to unlink is > significantly greater. > Okay, I think I can understand why you want to be cautious for having a different check for this path, but in that case there is a chance that recovery might fail when it will try to create a symlink for that file. Shouldn't we then try to call this new function only when we are trying to restore from tablespace_map file and also is there a need of ifdef S_ISLINK in remove_tablespace_link? With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
