On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 12:33:30PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > 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...
Okay, I just looked again at this point, and among the new messages only what's in XLogFileCopy has been bothering setting errno to 0 (see 811b6e3), so let's remove it in this case. Thoughts about the previous patch set? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
