SEO

#1 (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 06:50 AM

> > This is because lost+found exists. Since lost+found would be a
> > reasonably common directory to find at a mount-point on Unix-like
> > OSs*, would it make sense for CREATE TABLESPACE to ignore it if
present?

> No. There is no reason to use a volume's root directory as a
tablespace;
> especially so since the root directory ought to be owned by root

That is not so on AIX. Only the moint point (the dir in the parent) is
root.
Once mounted it can have (and preserves) any permission you want.
But on AIX the workaround is to remove the directory after mounting and
before
creating the tablespace.

Andreas

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

#2 (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 06:51 AM

"Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at> writes:
>> No. There is no reason to use a volume's root directory as a
>> tablespace;
>> especially so since the root directory ought to be owned by root

> That is not so on AIX. Only the moint point (the dir in the parent) is
> root.
> Once mounted it can have (and preserves) any permission you want.

Yeah, you *can* make it not-root-owned on most Unixen. That doesn't
mean it's a good idea to do so. For instance, if the root directory
is owned by Joe Luser, what's to stop him from blowing away lost+found
and thereby screwing up future fscks? You should basically never have
more-privileged objects (such as lost+found) inside directories owned by
less-privileged users --- it's just asking for trouble.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

SEO

Re: tablespaces and non-empty directories