Re: backtrace_on_internal_error

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 at 00:14, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I'm not actually sure that the fe-secure.c part of v3-0002 is
> necessary, because it's guarding plain recv(2) which really shouldn't
> return -1 without setting errno.  Still, it's a pretty harmless
> addition.

v3-0002 seems have a very similar goal to v23-0002 in my non-blocking
and encrypted cancel request patchset here:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAGECzQQirExbHe6uLa4C-sP%3DwTR1jazR_wgCWd4177QE-%3DVFDw%40mail.gmail.com#0b6cc1897c6d507cef49a3f3797181aa

Would it be possible to merge that on instead or at least use the same
approach as that one (i.e. return -2 on EOF). Otherwise I have to
update that patchset to match the new style of communicating that
there is an EOF. Also I personally think a separate return value for
EOF clearer when reading the code than checking for errno being 0.