Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed?
Date: 2020-02-28 15:03:23
Message-ID: 20200228150323.GA30707@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020-Feb-28, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> @@ -788,7 +788,6 @@ durable_link_or_rename(const char *oldfile, const char *newfile, int elevel)
> if (fsync_fname_ext(oldfile, false, false, elevel) != 0)
> return -1;
>
> -#ifdef HAVE_WORKING_LINK
> if (link(oldfile, newfile) < 0)
> {
> ereport(elevel,
> @@ -798,17 +797,6 @@ durable_link_or_rename(const char *oldfile, const char *newfile, int elevel)
> return -1;
> }
> unlink(oldfile);
> -#else
> - /* XXX: Add racy file existence check? */
> - if (rename(oldfile, newfile) < 0)

Maybe rename durable_link_or_rename to just durable_link?

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message legrand legrand 2020-02-28 15:06:35 Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2020-02-28 13:56:40 Re: Resume vacuum and autovacuum from interruption and cancellation