Re: Checking pgwin32_is_junction() errors

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Checking pgwin32_is_junction() errors
Date: 2022-04-21 07:56:23
Message-ID: YmEOJwmmKPugH41o@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2022-04-21 08:14:28 Re: effective_io_concurrency and NVMe devices
Previous Message Richard Guo 2022-04-21 07:51:53 Re: Assert failure in CTE inlining with view and correlated subquery