Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:44:11 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed?
Message-ID: <20200228184411.GA2963@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <17964.1582908905@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

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