Hi! On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 7:16 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I don't have access to a Windows machine and my developer experience > with that platform is pretty much nil, but I think this patch makes > sense. It's not an ideal solution, but it's not clear such solution > exists, and an improvement is better than nothing.
Thank you for your attention to this patch! > I have two minor comments about rename_temp: > > 1) The name might seem to be hinting it's about files opened using > OpenTemporaryFile, but in practice it's about files that are not > critical. But maybe it's true. We may invent another name. What about rename_fragile()? > 2) I think the rename_temp comment should mention it can only be used in > cases when the renames happen in a single process (non-concurrently). If > we could call rename_temp() concurrently from two different processes, > it won't work as expected. Of course, we only call rename_temp from stat > collector and syslogger, where it obviously works. Good point, this should be reflected in comments. > Anyway, I'm really nitpicking here ... > > Are there any objections to get the current patch committed as is, so > that it does not get pushed yet again to the next commitfest. It would be good to commit. Let's get agreement on function name first. ------ Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
