Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed?
Date
Msg-id 17964.1582908905@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed?
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I came across the HAVE_WORKING_LINK define in pg_config_manual.h. 
> AFAICT, hard links are supported on Windows and Cygwin in the OS 
> versions that we support, and pg_upgrade already contains the required 
> shim.  It seems to me we could normalize and simplify that, as in the 
> attached patches.  (Perhaps rename durable_link_or_rename() then.)  I 
> successfully tested on MSVC, MinGW, and Cygwin.

I don't have any way to test on Windows, but this patchset passes
eyeball review.  +1 for getting rid of the special cases.
Also +1 for s/durable_link_or_rename/durable_link/.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Juan José Santamaría Flecha
Date:
Subject: Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Assert failure due to "drop schema pg_temp_3 cascade" for temporary tables and \d+ is not showing any info after drooping temp table schema