From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: More consistency for some file-related error message |
Date: | 2018-07-19 03:33:30 |
Message-ID: | 20180719033330.GH3411@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:24:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> read() is required by spec to set errno when returning a negative result.
> I think the previous coding paid attention to errno regardless of the sign
> of the result, which would justify pre-zeroing it ... but the new coding
> definitely doesn't.
Yes, my point is a bit different though.. Do you think that we need to
bother about the case where errno is not 0 before calling read(), in the
case where it returns a positive result? This would mean that errno
would still have a previous errno set, still it returned a number of
bytes read. For the code paths discussed here that visibly does not
matter so you are right, we could remove them, still patterns get easily
copy-pasted around...
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2018-07-19 03:37:26 | Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-07-19 03:24:05 | Re: More consistency for some file-related error message |