Re: Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Yeah, even if we fixed this particular call site, I'm sure the issue
>> would come up again. Certainly we expect hot backups to work with
>> a changing source directory.

> In short, I'd still like to keep RecursiveCopy for now, but change its
> code so as a copy() is not a hard failure. What do you think?

The specific case we need to allow is "ENOENT on a file/dir that was
there a moment ago". I think it still behooves us to complain about
anything else. If you think it's a simple fix, have at it. But
I see at least three ways for _copypath_recurse to fail depending on
exactly when the file disappears.

regards, tom lane