Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> AFAICS mkdatadir() shouldn't consider subdir == NULL as a reason to
> >> fail rather than trying mkdir_p.
>
> > Right. In fact, I can't see any good reason to call mkdir and then
> > mkdir_p at all. See my patch from this afternoon.
>
> I'm unsure about that. I liked the original idea of only trying mkdir_p
> when plain mkdir() had failed with ENOENT. I am not convinced your
> proposed patch will behave desirably under all error cases. In
> particular, mkdir_p seems rather dependent on knowing just which errno
> codes will get returned --- which is okay for its heritage as BSD-only
> code, but how well will it port? Better to only invoke it when we have
> reason to think it can help.
I am inclined to apply the existing patch and see if we get actual errno
failures from port testing.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
