From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: new compiler warnings |
Date: | 2011-10-18 16:44:03 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYsrpCZiPkomfZuHoanhT+v0mX57QhoCMt0mJZ8odXAnA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-10-18 16:53:47 | Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-18 16:39:06 | Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer |