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.
> 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().
Andres