Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> I think that it should be coded
>>> to ignore ENOENT the same as the bgwriter does, and that it should press
>>> on and keep trying to delete things even if it gets a failure.
>>>
>
>
>> Perhaps, if it gets ENOENT, record this fact -- and after rmtree
>> returns, retry the whole thing.
>>
>
> Er, retry what? There was, presumably, nothing to delete.
>
>
>
Yeah. I agree rmtree() should treat ENOENT as non-fatal.
cheers
andrew