Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> AFAICS mkdatadir() shouldn't consider subdir == NULL as a reason to
>> fail rather than trying mkdir_p.
> Right. In fact, I can't see any good reason to call mkdir and then
> mkdir_p at all. See my patch from this afternoon.
I'm unsure about that. I liked the original idea of only trying mkdir_p
when plain mkdir() had failed with ENOENT. I am not convinced your
proposed patch will behave desirably under all error cases. In
particular, mkdir_p seems rather dependent on knowing just which errno
codes will get returned --- which is okay for its heritage as BSD-only
code, but how well will it port? Better to only invoke it when we have
reason to think it can help.
> Sure. Of course, the reason I put this on my web site and asked for
> eyeballs was to try to catch some of this sort of stuff before the
> program went into the tree :-)
We have a whole development cycle to shake these issues out. Don't
panic.
regards, tom lane