On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote:
>> 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. Looking through the code, it appears as if all the write calls I've seen are checking ret != amount, so it's probably not as big a deal for PG as I fear... But the subtle change in semantics (from system write ret != amount not necessarily a real error, hence no errno set) of pg_write ret != amount only happening after a "real error" (errno should be set) is one that could yet lead to confusion. a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, ai...@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
