On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-03-05 07:29:35 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> OK. I could produce that by tonight my time, not before unfortunately. > > I'm switching to this patch, after pushing the pending logical decoding > fixes. Probably not today, but tomorrow PST afternoon should work.
OK, so if that's the case there is not need to step on your toes seen from here. >> And FWIW, per the comments of Andres, it is not clear to me what we >> gain by having a common routine for link() and rename() knowing that >> half the code paths performing a rename do not rely on link(). > > I'm not talking about replacing all renames with this. Just the ones > that currently use link(). There's not much point in introducing > link_safe(), when all the callers have the same duplicated code, with a > fallback to rename(). Indeed, that's the case. I don't have a better name than replace_safe though. replace_paranoid is not a very appealing name either. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers