Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed?

On 2020-Feb-28, Tom Lane wrote:

> Also +1 for s/durable_link_or_rename/durable_link/.

Actually, it's not *that* either, because what the function does is link
followed by unlink.  So it's more a variation of durable_rename with
slightly different semantics -- the difference is what happens if a file
with the target name already exists.  Maybe call it durable_rename_no_overwrite.

There's a lot of commonality between the two.  Perhaps it's not entirely
silly to merge both as a single routine, with a flag to select either
behavior.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services