Re: Fix some error handling for read() and errno

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robbie Harwood <rharwood(at)redhat(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: Fix some error handling for read() and errno
Date: 2018-07-16 11:09:19
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 03:37:56PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> For now, I think that just moving forward with 0001, and then revisit
> 0002 once the other 2PC patch is settled makes the most sense. On the
> other thread, the current 2PC behavior can create silent data loss so
> I would like to back-patch it, so that would be less work.

Are there any objections with this plan? If none, then I would like to
move on with 0001 as there is clearly a consensus to simplify the work
of translators and to clean up the error code paths for read() calls.
Let's sort of the rest after the 2PC code paths are addressed.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michail Nikolaev 2018-07-16 11:11:57 Re: [WIP PATCH] Index scan offset optimisation using visibility map
Previous Message Paul Muntyanu 2018-07-16 10:03:08 Re: Parallel queries in single transaction