| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Dubious code in pg_rewind's process_target_file() |
| Date: | 2020-09-06 14:54:22 |
| Message-ID: | 6ba44dc9-2b7e-1988-de4e-99832235eae5@iki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/09/2020 21:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> It looks to me like we could replace "exists = false" with "return",
>> rather than uselessly constructing a FILE_ACTION_REMOVE entry for
>> a file we've already proven is not there.
>
> Or actually, maybe we should just drop the lstat call altogether?
> AFAICS it's 99.99% redundant with the lstat that traverse_datadir
> has done nanoseconds before. Yeah, maybe somebody managed to drop
> the file in between, but the FILE_ACTION_REMOVE code would have to
> deal with such cases anyway in case a drop occurs later.
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.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-09-06 14:59:11 | Re: Missing "Up" navigation link between parts and doc root? |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2020-09-06 13:26:08 | Re: Yet another fast GiST build (typo) |