On 3/17/23 16:43, gkokola...@pm.me wrote: >> >> ... >> >> I agree it's cleaner the way you did it. >> >> I was thinking that with each compression function handling error >> internally, the callers would not need to do that. But I haven't >> realized there's logic to detect ENOSPC and so on, and we'd need to >> duplicate that in every compression func. >> > > If you agree, I can prepare a patch to improve on the error handling > aspect of the API as a separate thread, since here we are trying to > focus on correctness. >
Yes, that makes sense. There are far too many patches in this thread already ... regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
