Re: Check some unchecked fclose() results

> On Apr 2, 2026, at 09:16, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> wrote:
>
> On 3/23/26 3:22 AM, Chao Li wrote:
>>> My criteria for including cases in this patch were basically:
>>>
>>> * only output file descriptors
>>> * code paths where the logic is relatively clear and easy to handle
>
> Those criteria are not enough as can be evidenced from some of the cases which you patched. I do not see why you would want to error out in the following two cases:
>

Thanks for noticing this patch.

> 1. When writing to e.g. a log file and we do not call pg_fatal() if a write fails. Then it makes no sense to die on failed fclose().
>

That’s a good point. I think you referred to the change in pg_dumpall.c and postmaster.c. I didn’t consider that point when I wrote the patch. But I think it’s arguable. Like in pg_dumpall.c, there are a lot of fprintf, check results of every fprintf might be redundant, checking a single fclose() might be cleaner. Anyway, I don’t want to argue hard for that.

> 2. When creating an empty file. I could be wrong here but in that case fclose() cannot fail. Arguably maybe we should use open() and close() then instead of fopen() and fclose() but handling an error which can never happen does not add any value.
>

Even if creating an empty file, fclose() could still possible fail. For example, creating an empty on a network storage, while fclose(), the network connection might be broken, then fclose() could fail.

> Please review your patches a bit careful before submitting. You are doing some good work with finding bugs and reviewing patches but it is clear you do not spend enough time per mail making sure it is not a false positive.
>

I might have missed some points while working on the patch, but I’m not sure how you concluded that I didn’t spend enough time on it. I did make some “too quick” mistakes in my first few months working on the hacker work. Since then, I have made it a rule to do self-review, build, and testing for every patch before sending it out. Of course, I am still human, I cannot guarantee that I will never make mistakes.

But your comments made me realize that a cleanup patch covering all fclose() is not a good idea. Each case needs to be evaluated separately, so a broad cleanup patch would be hard to get processed. For that reason, I am withdrawing this patch.

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/