From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Map basebackup tablespaces using a tablespace_map file |
Date: | 2015-06-08 17:43:36 |
Message-ID: | 20150608174336.GM133018@postgresql.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> Why not? I think that if we encounter some sort of situation that we
> think should never happen, throwing an error is exactly what we
> *should* do. Particularly when it comes to things like removing
> files, it is very dangerous for the database to proceed if the
> situation is not as expected. We should only remove things if we are
> quite sure that removing them is the right thing to do.
Yes, agreed.
I notice that we use %m in places where I'm not sure errno is the right
thing. Consider the ereport() at lines 10385ff, for instance. I don't
think fgetc() nor ferror() set errno.
I became aware of this because last week I was reading some bogus
pg_dump code that reported "could not write foobar: Success" and noticed
that the macros READ_ERROR_EXIT and WRITE_ERROR_EXIT also do
strerror(errno) after doing some fread() or similar.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2015-06-08 18:04:01 | pgsql: Refactor WAL segment copying code. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-06-08 15:59:23 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Map basebackup tablespaces using a tablespace_map file |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-06-08 17:44:05 | Re: Restore-reliability mode |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-06-08 17:36:11 | Re: [GENERAL] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1 |