Re: Patch to improve reliability of postgresql on linux nfs
От | Aidan Van Dyk |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Patch to improve reliability of postgresql on linux nfs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAC_2qU_6YGqskR3Qu4Mxj4MP-ecKM7ABJj-Svdk1Y+ZrW0Xuew@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Patch to improve reliability of postgresql on linux nfs (Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Patch to improve reliability of postgresql on linux
nfs
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org> wrote: >> 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*. > > Hm, but isn't that how write() works also? AFAIK (non-interruptible) write() > will return the number of bytes written, which may be less than the requested > number if there's not enough free space, or -1 in case of an error like > an invalid fd being passed. Looking through the code, it appears as if all the write calls I've seen are checking ret != amount, so it's probably not as big a deal for PG as I fear... But the subtle change in semantics (from system write ret != amount not necessarily a real error, hence no errno set) of pg_write ret != amount only happening after a "real error" (errno should be set) is one that could yet lead to confusion. a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, aidan@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: