Thomas Munro writes:
> Perhaps RemovePgTempFiles() could check if each one exists before
> calling RemovePgTempFilesInDir(), like in the attached? Alternatively
> we could make RemovePgTempFilesInDir() return early if temp_dir ==
> NULL (going against your commit message above), or I suppose we c
Back off chattiness in RemovePgTempFiles().
In commit 561885db0, as part of normalizing RemovePgTempFiles's error
handling, I removed its behavior of silently ignoring ENOENT failures
during directory opens. Thomas Munro points out that this is a bad idea at
the top level, because we don't create
I wrote:
> Hmmm ... actually, in the recursive call case, it wouldn't be that
> awful to ignore ENOENT either; if a directory goes away between being
> stat'd and being opened, you'd still get a log message about rmdir
> failure at the caller level. So maybe we should just do your
> second alterna
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Hmmm ... actually, in the recursive call case, it wouldn't be that
>> awful to ignore ENOENT either; if a directory goes away between being
>> stat'd and being opened, you'd still get a log message about rmdir
>> failure at the caller l
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hearing no comments, I did it the first way.
> It's funny that the two boolean arguments are always opposite.
> They're essentially both saying "top level?".
Yeah. I thought about using a single "bool top_level" argument
