Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The real issue in my mind is why is "ln" unreliable in mingw? I cannot
>> see any point in a retry kluge when we do not know what's really going
>> on.
> I'm still trying to find out. But I don't see why this is different from
> the kludge we already have for unlink, and that one is right inside
> postgresql.
It's different because we know why we need that one: we understand the
cause of the behavior and we therefore can have some confidence that the
kluge will fix it (or not, as the case may be). I have zero confidence
in looping five times around an "ln" call.
regards, tom lane
