Re: Use durable_unlink for .ready and .done files for WAL segmentremoval

On 12/6/18, 4:54 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 02:43:35PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Why?  A WARNING would be logged if the first unlink() fails, and
>> another, different WARNING would be logged if the subsequent fsync
>> fails.  It looks enough to me to make a distinction between both.  Now,
>> you may have a point in the fact that we could also live with only using
>> unlink() for this code path, as even on repetitive crashes this would
>> take care of removing orphan archive status files consistently.
>
> After sleeping on that, using plain unlink() makes indeed the most
> sense.  Any objections if I move on with that, adding a proper comment
> explaining the choice?  I don't plan to finish wrapping this patch today
> but Monday my time anyway.

That seems reasonable to me.

Nathan