| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Dubious code in pg_rewind's process_target_file() |
| Date: | 2020-09-05 18:18:29 |
| Message-ID: | 1222282.1599329909@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ranier Vilela | 2020-09-05 18:58:51 | Re: A micro-optimisation for walkdir() |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-09-05 18:08:40 | Dubious code in pg_rewind's process_target_file() |