Re: Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah, even if we fixed this particular call site, I'm sure the issue
>> would come up again.  Certainly we expect hot backups to work with
>> a changing source directory.

> In short, I'd still like to keep RecursiveCopy for now, but change its
> code so as a copy() is not a hard failure. What do you think?

The specific case we need to allow is "ENOENT on a file/dir that was
there a moment ago".  I think it still behooves us to complain about
anything else.  If you think it's a simple fix, have at it.  But
I see at least three ways for _copypath_recurse to fail depending on
exactly when the file disappears.

			regards, tom lane