On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 09:58:34AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > >> It could be > >> risky for existing callers of open() for tool maintainers, or on the > >> contrary people could welcome a wrapper of open() which is > >> concurrent-safe in their own tools. > > > > I am not sure if we can safely assume that because using these functions > > would allow users to concurrently delete the files, but may be it is okay > > for all the FRONTEND modules. One another alternative could be that we > > define open as pgwin32_open (for WIN32) wherever we need it. > > Which is what basically happens on any *nix platform, are you foreseeing > anything bad here? > Nothing apparent, but I think we should try to find out why at the first place this has been made backend specific. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
