On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
> > Something like the attached?
> Not sure about
> + * All methods that have a failure path will set errno on failure.
> Given that you've got a getlasterror method, I don't think that's really
> the API invariant is it?  If it were, you'd just have the callers doing
> strerror(errno) for themselves.  I think maybe a more accurate statement
> would be

Hmm. You're right, this is what I get for rushing a patch before plane
departure :/

>  * All methods that have a failure return indicator will set state
>  * allowing the getlasterror() method to return a suitable message.
>  * Commonly, errno is this state (or part of it); so callers must take
>  * care not to clobber errno between a failed method call and use of
>  * getlasterror() to retrieve the message.

Yeah, that's much better.

> Also:
> * the arguments of open_for_write() could stand to be explained
> * what's the return value of finish()?

Both fixed.

> * wouldn't it be better to declare getlasterror() as returning
>   "const char *"?

Yeah, probably is. Will do and push.


 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>

Reply via email to