| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: DROP DATABASE vs patch to not remove files right away |
| Date: | 2008-04-16 01:40:34 |
| Message-ID: | 48055912.2020109@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> I think that it should be coded
>>> to ignore ENOENT the same as the bgwriter does, and that it should press
>>> on and keep trying to delete things even if it gets a failure.
>>>
>
>
>> Perhaps, if it gets ENOENT, record this fact -- and after rmtree
>> returns, retry the whole thing.
>>
>
> Er, retry what? There was, presumably, nothing to delete.
>
>
>
Yeah. I agree rmtree() should treat ENOENT as non-fatal.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Denne | 2008-04-16 01:50:53 | Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-16 01:27:47 | Re: DROP DATABASE vs patch to not remove files right away |