From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Checking pgwin32_is_junction() errors
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 16:56:23 +0900
Message-ID: <YmEOJwmmKPugH41o@paquier.xyz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+hUKGLfOOeyZpm5ByVcAt7x5Pn-=xGRNCvgiUPVVzjFLtnY0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+hUKGLfOOeyZpm5ByVcAt7x5Pn-=xGRNCvgiUPVVzjFLtnY0w@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 04:30:26PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I think it'd be better to add missing_ok and elevel parameters,
> following existing patterns. Unfortunately, it can't use the generic
> frontend logging to implement elevel in frontend code from its current
> location, because pgport can't call pgcommon. For now I came up with
> a kludge to work around that problem, but I don't like it, and would
> need to come up with something better...
The only barrier reason why elevel if needed is because of pg_wal in
SyncDataDirectory() that cannot fail hard. I don't have a great idea
here, except using a bits32 with some bitwise flags to control the
behavior of the routine, aka something close to a MISSING_OK and a
FAIL_HARD_ON_ERROR. This pattern exists already in some of the
*Extended() routines.
--
Michael
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 832B) download
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: michael@paquier.xyz, thomas.munro@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Checking pgwin32_is_junction() errors
In-Reply-To: <YmEOJwmmKPugH41o@paquier.xyz>
* 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