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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
