Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > On 2021-Jun-03, Tom Lane wrote: >> If the unlink fails, there's only really a problem if the subsequent >> open() fails to overwrite the file --- and that stanza is perfectly >> capable of complaining for itself. So I think the code is fine and >> there's no need for a separate message about the unlink. Refusing to >> proceed, as you've done here, is strictly worse than what we have.
> It does seem to deserve a comment explaining this.
Agreed, the existing comment there is a tad terse.
regards, tom lane
Hi,
Here is the patch with a bit more comment on the unlink() call.
