On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 02:23:05PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Yeah, there is more to do. The reason I'm focusing on these two right
> now is that they would typically run as a background service, and a
> clean exit is most important there. In the other cases, the program
> runs more often in the foreground and you can see error messages. There
> are also some cases where fsync() failures are intentionally ignored
> ((void) casts), so some of that would need to be investigated further.
The remaining three calls all go through file_utils.c.
> Here is a patch to get started. Note that these calls don't go through
> file_utils.c, so it's a separate issue anyway.
Why using a different error code. Using EXIT_FAILURE is a more common
practice in the in-core binaries. The patch looks fine to me except
that, that's a good first cut.
--
Michael
