Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Sounds like papering over the bug ...
> I may have been unclear. It would be papering over the bug if I went
> ahead and did that now.
> The advantage of getting the file size from shared memory is that it
> doesn't leave it up to code like BufFileOpenShared() to find
> everything through readdir() iteration, an approach that might not be
> totally portable. We'll reliably fail if all BufFile segments cannot
> be accounted for with the size-in-shared-memory approach, which seems
> more robust. I wouldn't be surprised if that actually was the correct
> fix in the end.
Perhaps. Anyway, I think we agree that we should identify why it's
failing before we decide on a fix.
regards, tom lane