Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> I was kinda pondering just open coding it. I am not yet convinced that
> my idea of just using an open FD isn't the least bad approach for the
> issue at hand. What precisely is the NFS issue you're concerned about?
I'm not sure that fsync-on-FD after the rename will work, considering that
the issue here is that somebody might've unlinked the file altogether
before we get to doing the fsync. I don't have a hard time believing that
that might result in a failure report on NFS or similar. Yeah, it's
hypothetical, but the argument that we need a repeat fsync at all seems
equally hypothetical.
> Right now fsync_fname_ext isn't exposed outside fd.c...
Mmm. That makes it easier to consider changing its API.
regards, tom lane
