Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)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