On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Not wrong, and this leads to the following:
> void rename_safe(const char *old, const char *new, bool isdir, int elevel);
> Controlling elevel is necessary per the multiple code paths that would
> use it. Some use ERROR, most of them FATAL, and a bit of WARNING. Does
> that look fine?
After really coding it, I finished with the following thing:
+int
+rename_safe(const char *old, const char *new)
There is no need to extend that for directories, well we could of
course but all the renames happen on files so I see no need to make
that more complicated. More refactoring of the other rename() calls
could be done as well by extending rename_safe() with a flag to fsync
the data within a critical section, particularly for the replication
slot code. I have let that out to not complicate more the patch.
--
Michael
