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

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed?
Date
Msg-id 5473cecc-4d33-18ab-287d-6f8fb26d52db@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2020-02-28 19:44, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.

I have committed the first two patches.

Here is the third patch again, we renaming durable_link_or_rename() to 
durable_rename_excl().  This seems to match existing Unix system call 
naming best (see open() flag O_EXCL, and macOS has a renamex_np() flag 
RENAME_EXCL).

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dean Rasheed
Date:
Subject: Re: Some improvements to numeric sqrt() and ln()
Next
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: Option to dump foreign data in pg_dump