Re: For review: Server instrumentation patch

From: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: For review: Server instrumentation patch
Date: 2005-07-24 16:15:07
Message-ID: 42E3BE8B.2010406@pse-consulting.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
>>>Sent: 23 July 2005 20:01
>>>To: Dave Page
>>>Cc: PostgreSQL-development
>>>Subject: Re: [HACKERS] For review: Server instrumentation patch
>>>
>>>
>>>This patch looks good. The only question I have is why you
>>>didn't want
>>>the pgport rename/unlink calls?

Because I wanted the standard platform behaviour of both. For backend
storage subsystem purposes, it's certainly necessary to emulate *ix
behaviour of deleting a file in use, but for generic file access IMHO
the generic behaviour should be exposed.
Please note that there's some rollback logic in pg_file_rename that
might break when using the pg_xxx calls.

Regards,
Andreas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brian Kilpatrick 2005-07-24 16:29:47 Re: Going to OSCON? We need your help!
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-07-24 15:53:54 Re: [HACKERS] Patch to fix plpython on OS X