On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:31 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:19:45PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > I don't really have a problem fixing this case if we think it's > > useful. But I'm a bit bothered by all the "fixes" being submitted that > > don't matter for PG itself. They do eat up resources. > > Sure. In this particular case, we can simplify at least one code path > in the backend though for temporary path creation. Such cleanup rings > like a sufficient argument to me.
Yes, in current postgres source code there are several wrappers of mkdir() that do similar jobs. If we could have a safe mkdir_p() implementation then we could use it directly in all these wrappers, that could save a lot of maintenance effort in the long run. I'm not saying that our patches are enough to make it safe and reliable, and I agree that any patches may introduce new bugs, but I think that having a safe and unified mkdir_p() is a good direction to go. > > > And sorry, adding in-backend threading to test testing mkdir_p doesn't > > make me inclined to believe that this is all well considered. There's > > minor issues like us not supporting threads in the backend, pthread not > > being portable, and also it being entirely out of proportion to the > > issue. > > Agreed on this one. The test case may be useful for the purpose of > testing the presented patches, but it does not have enough value to be > merged. Yes, that's why we put the testing module in a separate patch from the fix, feel free to ignore it. In fact ourselves have concerns about it ;) Best Regards Ning > -- > Michael
