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

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed?
Date
Msg-id 20200228184411.GA2963@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed?
List pgsql-hackers
On 2020-Feb-28, Tom Lane wrote:

> Also +1 for s/durable_link_or_rename/durable_link/.

Actually, it's not *that* either, because what the function does is link
followed by unlink.  So it's more a variation of durable_rename with
slightly different semantics -- the difference is what happens if a file
with the target name already exists.  Maybe call it durable_rename_no_overwrite.

There's a lot of commonality between the two.  Perhaps it's not entirely
silly to merge both as a single routine, with a flag to select either
behavior.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
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
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