Em qua., 8 de mai. de 2024 às 08:42, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavu...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> Hi, > > On Wed, 8 May 2024 at 14:16, Ranier Vilela <ranier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Em qua., 8 de mai. de 2024 às 04:37, Nazir Bilal Yavuz < > byavu...@gmail.com> escreveu: > >> > >> Hi Ranier, > >> > >> Thanks for looking into this! > >> > >> I am not sure why but your reply does not show up in the thread, so I > >> copied your reply and answered it in the thread for visibility. > >> > >> On Tue, 7 May 2024 at 16:28, Ranier Vilela <ranier...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > I know it's coming from copy-and-paste, but > >> > I believe the flags could be: > >> > - dstfd = OpenTransientFile(tofile, O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_EXCL | > PG_BINARY); > >> > + dstfd = OpenTransientFile(tofile, O_CREAT | O_WRONLY | O_TRUNC | > O_EXCL | PG_BINARY); > >> > > >> > The flags: > >> > O_WRONLY | O_TRUNC > >> > > >> > Allow the OS to make some optimizations, if you deem it possible. > >> > > >> > The flag O_RDWR indicates that the file can be read, which is not > true in this case. > >> > The destination file will just be written. > >> > >> You may be right about the O_WRONLY flag but I am not sure about the > >> O_TRUNC flag. > >> > >> O_TRUNC from the linux man page [1]: If the file already exists and is > >> a regular file and the access mode allows writing (i.e., is O_RDWR or > >> O_WRONLY) it will be truncated to length 0. If the file is a FIFO or > >> terminal device file, the O_TRUNC flag is ignored. Otherwise, the > >> effect of O_TRUNC is unspecified. > > > > O_TRUNC is usually used in conjunction with O_WRONLY. > > See the example at: > > open.html > > > > O_TRUNC signals the OS to forget the current contents of the file, if it > happens to exist. > > In other words, there will be no seeks, only and exclusively writes. > > You are right; the O_TRUNC flag truncates the file, if it happens to > exist. But it should not exist in the first place because the code at > [2] should check this before the OpenTransientFile() call. Even if we > assume somehow the check at [2] does not work, I do not think the > correct operation is to truncate the contents of the existing file. > I don't know if there is a communication problem here. But what I'm trying to suggest refers to the destination file, which doesn't matter if it exists or not? If the destination file does not exist, O_TRUNC is ignored. If the destination file exists, O_TRUNC truncates the current contents of the file. I don't see why you think it's a problem to truncate the current content if the destination file exists. Isn't he going to be replaced anyway? Unless we want to preserve the current content (destination file), in case the copy/clone fails? best regards, Ranier Vilela
