On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 09:54:42PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> No, absolutely not. That way leads to madness, because you will be trying
> to enforce a system-wide property for the benefit of a few places. There
> is *no code anywhere* that promises to leave errno zero, but what you are
>
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 09:56:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, this is a bad idea. The right place to fix this is whatever code
>> segment is relying on errno to be initially zero; that is NEVER a sane
>> assumption. That is, a valid coding pattern is something like
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 09:56:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> No, this is a bad idea. The right place to fix this is whatever code
> segment is relying on errno to be initially zero; that is NEVER a sane
> assumption. That is, a valid coding pattern is something like
It seems to me that it could
Michael Paquier writes:
> Some system calls may not set errno even if they succeed, like
> strtol() on Linux for example, so in this case it can cause option
> handling to fail because of the error set by logging initialization.
> Shouldn't we reset errno to 0 once logging initialization is done?
