On 2022-08-01 Mo 16:06, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 2022-08-01 Mo 01:09, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 9:31 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There's one curious change in the draft patch attached: you can't
>>> unlink() a junction point, you have to rmdir() it. Previously, things
>>> that traverse directories without ever calling pgwin32_is_junction()
>>> would see junction points as S_ISDIR() and call rmdir(), which was OK,
>>> but now they see S_ISLNK() and call unlink(). So I taught unlink() to
>>> try both things. Which is kinda weird, and not beautiful, especially
>>> when combined with the existing looping weirdness.
>> Here's a new attempt at unlink(), this time in its own patch. This
>> version is a little more careful about calling rmdir() only after
>> checking that it is a junction point, so that unlink("a directory")
>> fails just like on Unix (well, POSIX says that that should fail with
>> EPERM, not EACCES, and implementations are allowed to make it work
>> anyway, but it doesn't seem helpful to allow it to work there when
>> every OS I know of fails with EPERM or EISDIR). That check is racy,
>> but should be good enough for our purposes, no (see comment for a note
>> on that)?
>>
>> Longer term, I wonder if we should get rid of our use of symlinks, and
>> instead just put paths in a file and do our own path translation. But
>> for now, this patch set completes the set of junction point-based
>> emulations, and, IMHO, cleans up a confusing aspect of our code.
>>
>> As before, 0001 is just for cfbot to add an MSYS checkmark.
>
>
> I'll try it out on fairywren/drongo.
>
>
They are happy with patches 2, 3, and 4.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
