From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | 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 14:06:27 |
Message-ID: | 1318946787.8007.6.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On tis, 2011-10-18 at 09:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> > It is a pity we can't just tell the compiler to turn off the warning in
> > a particular case.
>
> I haven't tested, but won't an explicit cast to void silence the
> warning?
>
> (void) fwrite(...);
No, tried that already. You could try
rc = write(...);
(void) rc;
> There are places, notably the calls in elog.c, where ignoring write
> failures is the right thing. I think that what Kevin was on about
> was something else entirely, namely whether we need to retry writes
> to disk. I would hope that we're not simply not bothering to check
> in any cases where it matters.
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.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-18 14:15:56 | Re: new compiler warnings |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-10-18 14:02:06 | Re: pg_ctl restart - behaviour based on wrong instance |