Michael Paquier writes:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 11:21:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> IMO, it's OK to push this this weekend if you have time.
> OK, done now down to 9.3.
Thanks!
regards, tom lane
On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 11:21:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> That looks good as far as it goes. I didn't cross-check that you
> hit everyplace that needs this, but if you grepped for references to
> ENOSPC then you presumably found them all.
That's exactly how the history goes.
> IMO, it's OK to
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 04:04:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> You need to go back and add the pre-clearing of errno in each of these
>> places, otherwise the added code is basically useless.
> I looked at all code paths enforcing ENOSPC on write() calls, and
> attached is
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 04:04:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> That's not good enough, because there is no reason to suppose that errno
> is initially zero; in reality it'll be whatever was left over from the
> last failed syscall, perhaps far distant from here. The places that do
> this correctly do
Michael Paquier writes:
> Address set of issues with errno handling
I happened to look at this patch while working up the release notes,
and I don't think it's right at all for this aspect:
> 1) For write() calls, sometimes the system may return less bytes than
> what has been written without er
