Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Should I just change them all to:

> 	errno = 0;  /* avoid checking result for failure */

No, that's still a completely inaccurate description of the reason
for having the statement.

> or should I add a macro to c.h as:

> 	/* Sometimes we need to clear errno so we can check errno
> 	 * without having to check for a failure value from the function
> 	 * call.
> 	 */	
> 	#define CLEAR_ERRNO \\
> 	do { \
> 		errno = 0; \\
> 	while (0);

I vote "neither".  Anyone who doesn't understand what this is for will
need to go read the C library man pages for a bit anyway.  Nor do I find
"CLEAR_ERRNO" an improvement over "errno = 0".

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add comments about why errno is set to zero. at 2005-12-01 21:00:15 from Bruce Momjian

Responses

• Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add comments about why errno is set to zero. at 2005-12-01 21:12:30 from Bruce Momjian

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2005-12-01 21:12:30
	Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add comments about why errno is set to zero.
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2005-12-01 21:01:34
	Subject: Re: generalizing the planner knobs

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2005-12-01 21:11:58
	Subject: pgsql: Comment "errno = 0" in a more generic way.
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2005-12-01 21:00:15
	Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add comments about why errno is set to zero.