Amit Kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> writes:
> On Monday, November 26, 2012 7:01 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Hmm, if it's just for locking purposes, how about using a lwlock or a
>> heavy-weight lock instead?
> Its not only for lock, the main idea is that we create temp file and write
> modified configuration in that temp file.
> In end if it's success, then we rename temp file to .conf file but if it
> error out then at abort we need to delete temp file.
> So in short, main point is to close/rename the file in case of success (at
> end of command) and remove in case of abort.
I'd go with the TRY/CATCH solution. It would be worth extending the
fd.c infrastructure if there were multiple users of the feature, but
there are not, nor do I see likely new candidates on the horizon.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
