Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > In at least some of these cases, I think ignoring the write() > result is intentional, because there's really nothing useful we > can do about it if it fails (oh, you wish we'd log a failure to > write to the log?). I know that in Java you can get a positive number less than the full size as an indication that part of the block was written, and you must loop to write until you get all of it written (or get an error return). At this page, it appears that the same is true of the write function in C: http://www.gnu.org/s/libc/manual/html_node/I_002fO-Primitives.html Quoting from that page: | The return value is the number of bytes actually written. This may | be size, but can always be smaller. Your program should always | call write in a loop, iterating until all the data is written. Isn't that the write function we're calling? If so, are you maintaining that the gnu.org documentation of this function is wrong? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
