On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Andres Freund <andres@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