Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah, even if we fixed this particular call site, I'm sure the issue
>> would come up again. Certainly we expect hot backups to work with
>> a changing source directory.
> In short, I'd still like to keep RecursiveCopy for now, but change its
> code so as a copy() is not a hard failure. What do you think?
The specific case we need to allow is "ENOENT on a file/dir that was
there a moment ago". I think it still behooves us to complain about
anything else. If you think it's a simple fix, have at it. But
I see at least three ways for _copypath_recurse to fail depending on
exactly when the file disappears.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers