On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:16 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > > On 2021-Jun-03, Tom Lane wrote: > >> If the unlink fails, there's only really a problem if the subsequent > >> open() fails to overwrite the file --- and that stanza is perfectly > >> capable of complaining for itself. So I think the code is fine and > >> there's no need for a separate message about the unlink. Refusing to > >> proceed, as you've done here, is strictly worse than what we have. > > > It does seem to deserve a comment explaining this. > > Agreed, the existing comment there is a tad terse. > > regards, tom lane > Hi, Here is the patch with a bit more comment on the unlink() call.
Cheers
comment-for-not-checking-unlink-return.patch
Description: Binary data
