Re: Dubious code in pg_rewind's process_target_file()

On 05/09/2020 21:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> It looks to me like we could replace "exists = false" with "return",
>> rather than uselessly constructing a FILE_ACTION_REMOVE entry for
>> a file we've already proven is not there.
> 
> Or actually, maybe we should just drop the lstat call altogether?
> AFAICS it's 99.99% redundant with the lstat that traverse_datadir
> has done nanoseconds before.  Yeah, maybe somebody managed to drop
> the file in between, but the FILE_ACTION_REMOVE code would have to
> deal with such cases anyway in case a drop occurs later.

Agreed, the lstat() doesn't do anything interesting.

This is refactored away by the patches discussed at 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f155aab5-1323-8d0c-9e3b-32703124bf00%40iki.fi. 
But maybe we should still clean it up in the back-branches.

- Heikki