Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, 10 May 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> The current code is nice and localized and doesn't add any burden on our > >> existing code, which is already complicated enough. I think we either > >> fix checkfiles.c, or we remove it and decide it isn't worth checking for > >> unrefrenced files. > > > Let's pull the patch for now. > > FWIW, I was OK with the idea of adding something similar to the given > patch to find out whether we had a problem or not. With sufficient > evidence that lost files are a big problem, I'd be in favor of a > mechanism of the kind proposed in Heikki's latest messages. The > disconnect for me at the moment is that there's no evidence to justify > that amount of effort/risk. A startup-time patch would have provided > that evidence, or else have proven that it's not worth spending more > time on.
Agreed. Imagine a backend creates a table file, then the operating system crashes. I assume WAL wasn't fsync'ed, so there is no way that WAL can discover that unreferenced file. While I think WAL can correct some cases, I don't think it can correct them all, so it seems it is necessary to check the file system against pg_class to catch all the cases. The transaction and file system semantics are just different and need to be checked against each other. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
