Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed?
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-03-04T16:37:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- v2-0001-Remove-HAVE_WORKING_LINK.patch (text/plain) patch v2-0001
On 2020-02-28 19:44, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2020-Feb-28, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Also +1 for s/durable_link_or_rename/durable_link/. > > Actually, it's not *that* either, because what the function does is link > followed by unlink. So it's more a variation of durable_rename with > slightly different semantics -- the difference is what happens if a file > with the target name already exists. Maybe call it durable_rename_no_overwrite. I have committed the first two patches. Here is the third patch again, we renaming durable_link_or_rename() to durable_rename_excl(). This seems to match existing Unix system call naming best (see open() flag O_EXCL, and macOS has a renamex_np() flag RENAME_EXCL). -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
Remove HAVE_WORKING_LINK
- aaa3aeddee51 13.0 landed
-
Move pg_upgrade's Windows link() implementation to AC_REPLACE_FUNCS
- 0ad6f848eef2 13.0 landed
-
pg_standby: Don't use HAVE_WORKING_LINK
- 1810ca18bfad 13.0 landed
-
Update Microsoft documentation link
- ed0d88376589 13.0 landed