Re: Dubious code in pg_rewind's process_target_file()

On 06/09/2020 18:06, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
>> On 05/09/2020 21:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Or actually, maybe we should just drop the lstat call altogether?
>
>> Agreed, the lstat() doesn't do anything interesting.
>> This is refactored away by the patches discussed at
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f155aab5-1323-8d0c-9e3b-32703124bf00%40iki.fi.
>> But maybe we should still clean it up in the back-branches.
>
> Ah, I'd not been paying much attention to that work, but I
> see you are getting rid of the lstat().
>
> I propose to remove the lstat() in the back branches, but not touch
> HEAD so as not to cause extra merge effort for your patch.

Thanks! Feel free to push it to HEAD, too, the merge conflict will be
trivial to resolve.

- Heikki