Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kEwxE-0005ik-8r for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 06 Sep 2020 15:51:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kEwxA-0005Rt-Be for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 06 Sep 2020 15:51:40 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kEwxA-0005Rg-4m for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 06 Sep 2020 15:51:40 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kEwx7-0003lE-SB for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 06 Sep 2020 15:51:39 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 086FpPPQ1395092; Sun, 6 Sep 2020 11:51:25 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Heikki Linnakangas cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Dubious code in pg_rewind's process_target_file() In-reply-to: <19145bdd-25a9-0ec5-2ec4-0e209e416dc8@iki.fi> References: <1221796.1599329320@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1222282.1599329909@sss.pgh.pa.us> <6ba44dc9-2b7e-1988-de4e-99832235eae5@iki.fi> <1364691.1599404819@sss.pgh.pa.us> <19145bdd-25a9-0ec5-2ec4-0e209e416dc8@iki.fi> Comments: In-reply-to Heikki Linnakangas message dated "Sun, 06 Sep 2020 18:13:48 +0300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1395090.1599407485.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2020 11:51:25 -0400 Message-ID: <1395091.1599407485@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Heikki Linnakangas writes: > On 06/09/2020 18:06, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. > Thanks! Feel free to push it to HEAD, too, the merge conflict will be > trivial to resolve. OK, done that way. regards, tom lane