Re: bufmgr and smgr don't talk to each other, apparently

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: bufmgr and smgr don't talk to each other, apparently
Date: 2000-07-29 15:59:26
Message-ID: 9689.964886366@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> (at least since 6.3): bufmgr.c expects that I/O errors will result in
>> an SM_FAIL return code from the smgr.c routines, but smgr.c does no
>> such thing: it does elog(ERROR) if it sees a failure. All of the

> except smgropen().

Right. I'm mainly looking at the block read/write/flush calls,
which have a lot of now-useless error recovery code after them.

> I also prefer the latter. Even though smgr returns SM_FAIL,md stuff
> already calls elog(ERROR) in many places.

Good point, and the fd.c level may have some elogs too...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-07-29 18:23:02 Anyone care about type "filename" ?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-07-29 15:49:06 Re: Fwd: Postgres update