Horton

Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed?

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-02-28T16:55:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I came across the HAVE_WORKING_LINK define in pg_config_manual.h. 
> AFAICT, hard links are supported on Windows and Cygwin in the OS 
> versions that we support, and pg_upgrade already contains the required 
> shim.  It seems to me we could normalize and simplify that, as in the 
> attached patches.  (Perhaps rename durable_link_or_rename() then.)  I 
> successfully tested on MSVC, MinGW, and Cygwin.

I don't have any way to test on Windows, but this patchset passes
eyeball review.  +1 for getting rid of the special cases.
Also +1 for s/durable_link_or_rename/durable_link/.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Remove HAVE_WORKING_LINK

  2. Move pg_upgrade's Windows link() implementation to AC_REPLACE_FUNCS

  3. pg_standby: Don't use HAVE_WORKING_LINK

  4. Update Microsoft documentation link