On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote:
> > Sorry for the self-reply. I realized only after hitting send that I > got the ENOSPC handling wrong again - we probably ought to check for > ENOSPC as well as ret == 0. Also, it seems preferable to return the > number of bytes actually written instead of -1 if we hit an error during > retry. > > With this version, any return value other than <amount> signals an > error, the number of actually written bytes is reported even in the > case of an error (to the best of pg_write_nointr's knowledge), and > errno always indicates the kind of error. 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*. If you sometimes return -1 for an error, even though ret != amount is the *real* test, I'm going to guess there will be lots of chance for code to do: if (pg_write_no_intr(...) < 0) ... which will only catch some of the errors, and happily continue with the rest... a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, ai...@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
