On Sep13, 2011, at 15:05 , Aidan Van Dyk wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote: >> Sorry for the self-reply. I realized only after hitting send that I >> got the ENOSPC handling wrong again - we probably ought to check for >> ENOSPC as well as ret == 0. Also, it seems preferable to return the >> number of bytes actually written instead of -1 if we hit an error during >> retry. >> >> With this version, any return value other than <amount> signals an >> error, the number of actually written bytes is reported even in the >> case of an error (to the best of pg_write_nointr's knowledge), and >> errno always indicates the kind of error. > > Personally, I'ld think that's ripe for bugs. If the contract is that > ret != amount is the "error" case, then don't return -1 for an error > *sometimes*.
Hm, but isn't that how write() works also? AFAIK (non-interruptible) write() will return the number of bytes written, which may be less than the requested number if there's not enough free space, or -1 in case of an error like an invalid fd being passed. > If you sometimes return -1 for an error, even though ret != amount is > the *real* test, I'm going to guess there will be lots of chance for > code to do: > if (pg_write_no_intr(...) < 0) > ... > > which will only catch some of the errors, and happily continue with the > rest... Yeah, but that's equally wrong for plain write(), so I'm not sure I share your concern there. Also, I'm not sure how to improve that. We could always return -1 in case of an error, and "amount" in case of success, but that makes it impossible to determine how many bytes where actually written (and also feel awkward). Or we could return 0 instead of -1 if there was an error and zero bytes where written. But that feels awkward also... One additional possibility would be to make the signature boolean pg_write_nointr(int fd, const void *bytes, int len, int *written) and simply return true on success and false on error. Callers who're interested in the number of bytes actually written (in the case of an error) would need to pass some non-NULL pointer for <written>, while all others would just pass NULL. Thoughts? best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
