From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Dubious code in pg_rewind's process_target_file()
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 17:54:22 +0300
Message-ID: <6ba44dc9-2b7e-1988-de4e-99832235eae5@iki.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1222282.1599329909@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <1221796.1599329320@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1222282.1599329909@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 05/09/2020 21:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> It looks to me like we could replace "exists = false" with "return",
>> rather than uselessly constructing a FILE_ACTION_REMOVE entry for
>> a file we've already proven is not there.
>
> Or actually, maybe we should just drop the lstat call altogether?
> AFAICS it's 99.99% redundant with the lstat that traverse_datadir
> has done nanoseconds before. Yeah, maybe somebody managed to drop
> the file in between, but the FILE_ACTION_REMOVE code would have to
> deal with such cases anyway in case a drop occurs later.
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-32703124bf00%40iki.fi.
But maybe we should still clean it up in the back-branches.
- Heikki
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: hlinnaka@iki.fi, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, 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>
* 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