From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump return status.. |
Date: | 2001-01-05 23:14:15 |
Message-ID: | 15183.978736455@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
>> 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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-01-05 23:44:41 | Re: SHM ids (was running pgsql 7 under Jail'ed virtual machine on FreeBSD 4.2) |
Previous Message | Alex Pilosov | 2001-01-05 23:06:55 | Re: SHM ids (was running pgsql 7 under Jail'ed virtual machine on FreeBSD 4.2) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-01-05 23:25:38 | Re: bootstrap tables |
Previous Message | Alex Pilosov | 2001-01-05 23:06:55 | Re: SHM ids (was running pgsql 7 under Jail'ed virtual machine on FreeBSD 4.2) |