>> An fprintf returning 0 is a suspicious event; it's easy to imagine 
>> cases where it makes sense, but I don't think I have ever coded one.
>> Probably > N (where N is the smallest reasonable output, defaulting 
>> to 1) may be a better test in real code.

> On older systems fprintf returns 0 on success and EOF on failure.

The books I have all recommend testing for "a negative return value"
to detect printf errors.  The C standard also specifies "a negative
value" for errors --- it is not guaranteed that that value is EOF.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: pg_dump return status.. at 2001-01-05 22:26:13 from Ian Lance Taylor

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2001-01-05 23:25:38
	Subject: Re: bootstrap tables
Previous:	From: Alex Pilosov	Date: 2001-01-05 23:06:55
	Subject: Re: SHM ids (was running pgsql 7 under Jail'ed virtual machine on FreeBSD 4.2)

pgsql-general by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2001-01-05 23:44:41
	Subject: Re: SHM ids (was running pgsql 7 under Jail'ed virtual machine on FreeBSD 4.2)
Previous:	From: Alex Pilosov	Date: 2001-01-05 23:06:55
	Subject: Re: SHM ids (was running pgsql 7 under Jail'ed virtual machine on FreeBSD 4.2)