Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Testing the return value of fclose() in the backend

From: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Testing the return value of fclose() in the backend
Date: 2003-05-31 04:55:11
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0305311451140.27434-100000@linuxworld.com.au (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Gavin Sherry wrote:
> >> There are various places in the backend, such as FreeFile(), where the
> >> return value of fclose() is not tested.
> 
> > We are not checking fclose, probably because fclose failures are quite
> > rare.  Should we be concerned?
> 
> Probably.  Closing a valid file descriptor in itself can't provoke any
> error that I can imagine, but fclose() also implies fflush() --- so if
> you have written data that hasn't yet been forced out of the stdio
> buffers then out-of-disk-space is certainly a foreseeable failure.

Yes. I think I brought that up in my original email. Heap access/WAL 
routines 'should not' suffer an fclose() problem because of
fsync() calls. But this isn't necessarily the case for COPY.

> 
> fclose failure on an open-for-read-only file seems like Assert()
> material; it "can't happen".

Right. If this generates an error, there are probably more serious issues.

Gavin


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Justin CliftDate: 2003-05-31 07:39:34
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Are we losing momentum?
Previous:From: Mike MascariDate: 2003-05-31 04:40:09
Subject: A few notes

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group