> On Feb 2, 2026, at 11:54, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> While looking at walsummary.c for a different thread, I have bumped
> into this code:
> OpenWalSummaryFile(WalSummaryFile *ws, bool missing_ok)
> [...]
> file = PathNameOpenFile(path, O_RDONLY);
> if (file < 0 && (errno != EEXIST || !missing_ok))
> ereport(ERROR,
> (errcode_for_file_access(),
> errmsg("could not open file \"%s\": %m", path)));
>
> And it seems to me that this EEXIST should be an ENOENT? The top of
> the function also documents that we want to handle an error when a
> summary file does not exist. The comment makes sense to me, not the
> code.
>
> It's also worth noting that this function has two callers, both use
> missing_ok = false, meaning that the errno check does not really
> matter today. If someone plays with this code on HEAD or the
> back-branches and decides to introduce a missing_ok=true call, it
> could matter, so I'd rather not change this function signature.
>
> This issue has been mentioned here as well, I've just bumped into it
> independently a few hours ago:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/tencent_1CA40FCC21C1C770712BC089@qq.com
>
> Regards,
> --
> Michael
> <wal-summary-errno.patch>
I think this is a correct fix.
```
[EEXIST] O_CREAT and O_EXCL are specified and the file exists.
[ENOENT] O_CREAT is not set and the named file does not exist.
```
Here, the open flag is only O_RDONLY, so we should only expect ENOENT.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
