Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 09:56:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, this is a bad idea. The right place to fix this is whatever code
>> segment is relying on errno to be initially zero; that is NEVER a sane
>> assumption. That is, a valid coding pattern is something like
> So for now, what about looking at all those code paths and enforce
> errno to 0?
No, absolutely not. That way leads to madness, because you will be trying
to enforce a system-wide property for the benefit of a few places. There
is *no code anywhere* that promises to leave errno zero, but what you are
suggesting will soon lead to a situation where we have to require that of
everything. It's not sane, it's not maintainable, and it's going to be
inefficient as heck, because it will require adding a whole lot more
"errno = 0" statements than the other way.
regards, tom lane
> --
> Michael
