From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed?
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:44:11 -0300
Message-ID: <20200228184411.GA2963@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17964.1582908905@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 2020-Feb-28, Tom Lane wrote:
> Also +1 for s/durable_link_or_rename/durable_link/.
Actually, it's not *that* either, because what the function does is link
followed by unlink. So it's more a variation of durable_rename with
slightly different semantics -- the difference is what happens if a file
with the target name already exists. Maybe call it durable_rename_no_overwrite.
There's a lot of commonality between the two. Perhaps it's not entirely
silly to merge both as a single routine, with a flag to select either
behavior.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed?
In-Reply-To: <20200228184411.GA2963@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox