From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Ning <ning94803(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: psql client does not handle WSAEWOULDBLOCK on Windows |
Date: | 2025-09-02 15:51:41 |
Message-ID: | 592101.1756828301@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> This is going to require some platform-specific check that I don't
> have with me, though I am ready to accept that what you are telling
> here is true and that we should apply this macro. Could somebody
> check that a bit more in depth? Andrew D. perhaps?
> One thing that I don't understand is why does this only apply after
> the first call of pqsecure_raw_read() in gss_read()? There is a
> second call of pqsecure_raw_read() you are not covering but it would
> surely need the same treatment, no?
> Also, what about pqsecure_raw_write() in pqsecure_open_gss()?
> Shouldn't the same check apply?
Yeah, I think we pretty much need to use SOCK_ERRNO, SOCK_ERRNO_SET,
and SOCK_STRERROR (if relevant) throughout fe-secure-gssapi.c.
Directly using errno is correct for syscalls related to the file
system, but I think everything in this file is dealing with
socket-related errors. Certainly the underlying pqsecure_raw_read
and pqsecure_raw_write layer expects those macros to be used.
Like you, I'm not really in a position to test this on Windows ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-09-02 16:02:37 | Re: Use bool with synced field (src/include/replication/slot.h) |
Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-09-02 15:38:23 | Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends |