hello ...

i have come an interesting corner case this morning and i am not sure if it is worth treating this as a bug or as just "bad luck".
imagine creating a directory along with a tablespace ...
hans-jurgen-schonigs-macbook:html hs$ mkdir /tmp/x
hans-jurgen-schonigs-macbook:html hs$ psql test
psql (8.4.1)
Type "help" for help.

test=# create tablespace x location '/tmp/x';
CREATE TABLESPACE
test=# create tablespace x2 location '/tmp/x';
ERROR:  directory "/tmp/x" is not empty
test=# \q

postgres errors our here correctly because it sees that the tablespace is not empty. this is perfect ...

hans-jurgen-schonigs-macbook:html hs$ cd /tmp/x
hans-jurgen-schonigs-macbook:x hs$ ls
PG_VERSION
hans-jurgen-schonigs-macbook:x hs$ rm PG_VERSION

now, after killing the PG_VERSION file, i am able to create a tablespace pointing to the same directoy.
this should be prevented by one more unique index on the directory.

hans-jurgen-schonigs-macbook:x hs$ psql test
psql (8.4.1)
Type "help" for help.

test=# create tablespace x2 location '/tmp/x';
CREATE TABLESPACE
test=# \d pg_tablespace
  Table "pg_catalog.pg_tablespace"
   Column    |   Type    | Modifiers
-------------+-----------+-----------
 spcname     | name      | not null
 spcowner    | oid       | not null
 spclocation | text      |
 spcacl      | aclitem[] |
Indexes:
"pg_tablespace_oid_index" UNIQUE, btree (oid), tablespace "pg_global" "pg_tablespace_spcname_index" UNIQUE, btree (spcname), tablespace "pg_global"
Tablespace: "pg_global"

test=# SELECT * FROM pg_tablespace;
  spcname   | spcowner |  spclocation  | spcacl
------------+----------+---------------+--------
 pg_default |       10 |               |
 pg_global  |       10 |               |
 x          |       10 | /tmp/x        |
 x2         |       10 | /tmp/x        |
(6 rows)

now, killing PG_VERSION manually is not what people do but what can happen is that, say, an NFS connection is gone or that somehow the directory is empty because of some other network filesystem doing some funny thing. it is quite realistic that this can happen.

how about one more unique index here?
pg_tablespace does not look too good with a duplicate entry ...

        many thanks,

                hans


--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Reyergasse 9 / 2
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Web: www.postgresql-support.de


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to