On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote:
> No, I believe we are OK everywhere else. We are only ignoring the
> result in cases where we are trying to report errors in the first place.
The relevant code is:
while (len > PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD)
{
p.proto.is_last = (dest == LOG_DESTINATION_CSVLOG ? 'F' : 'f');
p.proto.len = PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD;
memcpy(p.proto.data, data, PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD);
write(fd, &p, PIPE_HEADER_SIZE + PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD);
data += PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD;
len -= PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD;
}
Which it seems to me we could change by doing rc = write(). Then if
rc <= 0, we bail out. If not, we add and subtract rc, rather than
PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD. That would be barely more code, probably safer, and
would silence the warning.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
