Michael Fuhr wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 05:39:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I'll submit a patch -- any preferences for silent continuation vs.
> > > continuation with a notice or warning?
> >
> > I think silent is fine for ENOENT cases. We kn
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 05:39:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'll submit a patch -- any preferences for silent continuation vs.
> > continuation with a notice or warning?
>
> I think silent is fine for ENOENT cases. We know the file had been
> there at
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'll submit a patch -- any preferences for silent continuation vs.
> continuation with a notice or warning?
I think silent is fine for ENOENT cases. We know the file had been
there at ReadDir time, so the only possible conclusion is that it was
just unli
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 12:32:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm wondering if the code should check for ENOENT if stat() fails
> > and either skip this entry silently under the assumption that the
> > file had been deleted since the call to ReadDir(),
>
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm wondering if the code should check for ENOENT if stat() fails
> and either skip this entry silently under the assumption that the
> file had been deleted since the call to ReadDir(),
Probably. Want to look through the rest of that module for similar
