Re: Loaded footgun open_datasync on Windows
| От | Amit Kapila |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Loaded footgun open_datasync on Windows |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA4eK1KZ_N5ef4wOgB_HCtB-7=6udHpjte2aZt3iqT9-eSh9oQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Loaded footgun open_datasync on Windows (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Loaded footgun open_datasync on Windows
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 09:58:34AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> It could be
>> risky for existing callers of open() for tool maintainers, or on the
>> contrary people could welcome a wrapper of open() which is
>> concurrent-safe in their own tools.
>
> I am not sure if we can safely assume that because using these functions
> would allow users to concurrently delete the files, but may be it is okay
> for all the FRONTEND modules. One another alternative could be that we
> define open as pgwin32_open (for WIN32) wherever we need it.
Which is what basically happens on any *nix platform, are you foreseeing
anything bad here?
Nothing apparent, but I think we should try to find out why at the first place this has been made backend specific.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: