Re: Loaded footgun open_datasync on Windows

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 09:58:34AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> >> It could be
> >> risky for existing callers of open() for tool maintainers, or on the
> >> contrary people could welcome a wrapper of open() which is
> >> concurrent-safe in their own tools.
> >
> > I am not sure if we can safely assume that because using these functions
> > would allow users to concurrently delete the files, but may be it is okay
> > for all the FRONTEND modules.  One another alternative could be that we
> > define open as pgwin32_open (for WIN32) wherever we need it.
>
> Which is what basically happens on any *nix platform, are you foreseeing
> anything bad here?


>
Nothing apparent, but I think we should try to find out why at the first
place this has been made backend specific.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com