Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 3:27 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I have not tried to analyze the error-handling properties of 0001,
>> but if it's being equally cavalier then it shouldn't be committed
>> either.
> 0001 does introduce new errors, as mentioned in the commit message, in
> the form of elevel ERROR passed into get_dirent_type(), which might be
> thrown if your OS has no d_type and lstat() fails (also if you asked
> to follow symlinks, but in those cases errors were already thrown).
> But in those cases, it seems at least a little fishy that we ignored
> errors from the existing lstat().
Hmmm ... I'll grant that ignoring lstat errors altogether isn't great.
But should the replacement behavior be elog-LOG-and-press-on,
or elog-ERROR-and-fail-the-surrounding-operation? I'm not in any
hurry to believe that the latter is more appropriate without some
analysis of what the callers are doing.
The bottom line here is that I'm distrustful of behavioral changes
introduced to simplify refactoring rather than to solve a live
problem.
regards, tom lane
