On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> I would like to have a patch for this finalized today, so that we can
>>> apply to master before or during the weekend; with it in the tree for
>>> about a week we can be more confident and backpatch close to next
>>> weekend, so that we see it in the next set of minor releases. Does that
>>> sound good?
>>
>> I see no reason to wait before backpatching. If you're concerned about
>> having testing, the more branches it is in, the more buildfarm cycles
>> you will get on it. And we're not going to cut any releases in between,
>> so what's the benefit of not having it there?
>
> Agreed.
OK. I could produce that by tonight my time, not before unfortunately.
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(). At
least it sound dangerous to me to introduce a dependency to link() in
code paths that depend just on rename() for back branches. On HEAD, we
could be more adventurous for sure. Regarding the replacement of
stat() by something relying on OpenTransientFile I agree though. For
the flush of the parent directory in link_safe() we'd still want to do
it, and we are fine to not flush the parent directory of the old file
because the backend does not move files across paths.
--
Michael