| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| 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 20:04:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20180716200412.7wd23o6k773l52d7@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-Jul-16, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 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.
No objection here -- incremental progress is better than none.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-07-16 20:14:09 | Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
| Previous Message | Victor Yegorov | 2018-07-16 19:40:33 | Re: Alter index rename concurrently to |