From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Loaded footgun open_datasync on Windows |
Date: | 2018-06-06 09:09:35 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KZ_N5ef4wOgB_HCtB-7=6udHpjte2aZt3iqT9-eSh9oQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 09:58:34AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> >> It could be
> >> risky for existing callers of open() for tool maintainers, or on the
> >> contrary people could welcome a wrapper of open() which is
> >> concurrent-safe in their own tools.
> >
> > I am not sure if we can safely assume that because using these functions
> > would allow users to concurrently delete the files, but may be it is okay
> > for all the FRONTEND modules. One another alternative could be that we
> > define open as pgwin32_open (for WIN32) wherever we need it.
>
> Which is what basically happens on any *nix platform, are you foreseeing
> anything bad here?
>
Nothing apparent, but I think we should try to find out why at the first
place this has been made backend specific.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2018-06-06 09:11:02 | Re: I'd like to discuss scaleout at PGCon |
Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2018-06-06 08:58:51 | Re: I'd like to discuss scaleout at PGCon |