Re: [BUGS] [9.0beta5/cvs head] build failure due to unchecked results

2010-05-01 Thread Martin Pitt
Tom Lane [2010-04-30 12:51 -0400]: > I concur, those two changes look worthwhile. The proposed Assert() > additions are right out, though, as they would turn write failures > into database crashes. Right, that might be too strong. > The current code doesn't even think that such a failure is wort

Re: [BUGS] [9.0beta5/cvs head] build failure due to unchecked results

2010-04-30 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > Still, I think we should consider applying the portion of > the proposed patch that avoid relying on the contents of the fgets() > buffer after fgets() returns NULL, I concur, those two changes look worthwhile. The proposed Assert() additions are right out, though, as they

Re: [BUGS] [9.0beta5/cvs head] build failure due to unchecked results

2010-04-30 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On fre, 2010-04-30 at 14:43 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: >> On Friday 30 April 2010 13:56:11 Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> > >> > You probably mean alpha5, unless you come from the future. ;-)  That was >> > actually a mistake in the packaging

Re: [BUGS] [9.0beta5/cvs head] build failure due to unchecked results

2010-04-30 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On fre, 2010-04-30 at 14:43 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On Friday 30 April 2010 13:56:11 Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > > You probably mean alpha5, unless you come from the future. ;-) That was > > actually a mistake in the packaging, which is why there is a -revised > > tarball available. > Isn

Re: [BUGS] [9.0beta5/cvs head] build failure due to unchecked results

2010-04-30 Thread Andres Freund
On Friday 30 April 2010 13:56:11 Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On fre, 2010-04-30 at 12:55 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > > Hello PostgreSQL developers, > > > > 9.0beta5 seems to enable -Werror by default (which is a good thing, > > thanks!). > > You probably mean alpha5, unless you come from the future

Re: [BUGS] [9.0beta5/cvs head] build failure due to unchecked results

2010-04-30 Thread Martin Pitt
Peter Eisentraut [2010-04-30 14:56 +0300]: > You probably mean alpha5, unless you come from the future. ;-) FYI, those are next week's lottery numbers: 12, 19, ... Right, of course I mean alpha-5, sorry. > That was actually a mistake in the packaging Oh, I see. Well, for a mistake the code is s

Re: [BUGS] [9.0beta5/cvs head] build failure due to unchecked results

2010-04-30 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On fre, 2010-04-30 at 12:55 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hello PostgreSQL developers, > > 9.0beta5 seems to enable -Werror by default (which is a good thing, > thanks!). You probably mean alpha5, unless you come from the future. ;-) That was actually a mistake in the packaging, which is why there

[BUGS] [9.0beta5/cvs head] build failure due to unchecked results

2010-04-30 Thread Martin Pitt
Hello PostgreSQL developers, 9.0beta5 seems to enable -Werror by default (which is a good thing, thanks!). FORTIFY_SOURCE catches a few places where the result of write() and fgets() is not checked, and thus the build fails with gcc -g -O2 -g -Wall -O2 -fPIC -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-a