Re: new compiler warnings
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: new compiler warnings |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYsrpCZiPkomfZuHoanhT+v0mX57QhoCMt0mJZ8odXAnA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: new compiler warnings (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: new compiler warnings
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >>> No, I believe we are OK everywhere else. We are only ignoring the >>> result in cases where we are trying to report errors in the first place. > >> The relevant code is: > >> while (len > PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD) >> { >> p.proto.is_last = (dest == LOG_DESTINATION_CSVLOG ? 'F' : 'f'); >> p.proto.len = PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD; >> memcpy(p.proto.data, data, PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD); >> write(fd, &p, PIPE_HEADER_SIZE + PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD); >> data += PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD; >> len -= PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD; >> } > >> Which it seems to me we could change by doing rc = write(). Then if >> rc <= 0, we bail out. If not, we add and subtract rc, rather than >> PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD. That would be barely more code, probably safer, and >> would silence the warning. > > And it would break the code. The whole point here is that the message > must be sent indivisibly. How is that different than the chunking that the while loop is already doing? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: