From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Dubious code in pg_rewind's process_target_file()
In-reply-to: <6ba44dc9-2b7e-1988-de4e-99832235eae5@iki.fi>
References: <1221796.1599329320@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <1222282.1599329909@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <6ba44dc9-2b7e-1988-de4e-99832235eae5@iki.fi>
Comments: In-reply-to Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
	message dated "Sun, 06 Sep 2020 17:54:22 +0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1364690.1599404819.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2020 11:06:59 -0400
Message-ID: <1364691.1599404819@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> writes:
> On 05/09/2020 21:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Or actually, maybe we should just drop the lstat call altogether?

> Agreed, the lstat() doesn't do anything interesting.
> This is refactored away by the patches discussed at =

> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f155aab5-1323-8d0c-9e3b-32703124bf=
00%40iki.fi. =

> But maybe we should still clean it up in the back-branches.

Ah, I'd not been paying much attention to that work, but I
see you are getting rid of the lstat().

I propose to remove the lstat() in the back branches, but not touch
HEAD so as not to cause extra merge effort for your patch.

			regards, tom lane