Re: Dubious code in pg_rewind's process_target_file()

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Dubious code in pg_rewind's process_target_file()
Date: 2020-09-06 15:06:59
Message-ID: 1364691.1599404819@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 05/09/2020 21:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Or actually, maybe we should just drop the lstat call altogether?

> 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.

Ah, I'd not been paying much attention to that work, but I
see you are getting rid of the lstat().

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2020-09-06 15:13:48 Re: Dubious code in pg_rewind's process_target_file()
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2020-09-06 14:59:11 Re: Missing "Up" navigation link between parts and doc root?