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 alternative as-is (ie, code as above but without missing_ok).
> Having an explicit control parameter seems marginally clearer but
> I'm not sure it's buying anything meaningful. Thoughts?
Hearing no comments, I did it the first way.
regards, tom lane