On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:32:01AM -0400, Aidan Van Dyk wrote: > 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.
I assume there is no TODO here. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
