From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add comments about why errno is set to zero. |
Date: | 2005-12-01 21:06:20 |
Message-ID: | 17114.1133471180@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-01 21:11:58 | pgsql: Comment "errno = 0" in a more generic way. |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-01 21:00:15 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add comments about why errno is set to zero. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-01 21:12:30 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add comments about why errno is set to zero. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-01 21:01:34 | Re: generalizing the planner knobs |