Re: psql client does not handle WSAEWOULDBLOCK on Windows

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Ning <ning94803(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: psql client does not handle WSAEWOULDBLOCK on Windows
Date: 2024-12-10 06:41:02
Message-ID: Z1fifjpgDAxPPkuh@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 04:01:42PM +0800, Ning wrote:
> In the function of gss_read() if print the value of errno and SOCK_ERRNO
> separately, I found the values are different:
> *ret = pqsecure_raw_read(conn, recv_buffer, length);
> if (*ret < 0)
> {
> printf("errno: %d\n", errno);
> printf("result_errno: %d\n", SOCK_ERRNO);
> ...

*ret = pqsecure_raw_read(conn, recv_buffer, length);
if (*ret < 0)
{
- if (errno == EAGAIN || errno == EWOULDBLOCK || errno == EINTR)
+ if (SOCK_ERRNO == EAGAIN || SOCK_ERRNO == EWOULDBLOCK || SOCK_ERRNO == EINTR)

This is going to require some platform-specific check that I don't
have with me, though I am ready to accept that what you are telling
here is true and that we should apply this macro. Could somebody
check that a bit more in depth? Andrew D. perhaps?

One thing that I don't understand is why does this only apply after
the first call of pqsecure_raw_read() in gss_read()? There is a
second call of pqsecure_raw_read() you are not covering but it would
surely need the same treatment, no?

Also, what about pqsecure_raw_write() in pqsecure_open_gss()?
Shouldn't the same check apply?
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bertrand Drouvot 2024-12-10 06:42:38 Re: shared-memory based stats collector - v70
Previous Message Michael Harris 2024-12-10 06:34:23 Re: FileFallocate misbehaving on XFS