On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 09:29:16AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 9:20 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Hmmm ... I'll grant that ignoring lstat errors altogether isn't great. >> But should the replacement behavior be elog-LOG-and-press-on, >> or elog-ERROR-and-fail-the-surrounding-operation? I'm not in any >> hurry to believe that the latter is more appropriate without some >> analysis of what the callers are doing. >> >> The bottom line here is that I'm distrustful of behavioral changes >> introduced to simplify refactoring rather than to solve a live >> problem. > > +1. I agree with Tom not to change elog-LOG to elog-ERROR and fail the > checkpoint operation. Because the checkpoint is more important than > why a single snapshot file (out thousands or even million files) isn't > removed at that moment. Also, I originally proposed to change > elog-ERROR to elog-LOG in CheckPointLogicalRewriteHeap for unlink() > failures for the same reason.
This was my initial instinct as well, but this thread has received contradictory feedback during the months since. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
