Re: backtrace_on_internal_error - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: backtrace_on_internal_error
Date
Msg-id 20231220103001.bemhwy73uwiawakk@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: backtrace_on_internal_error  (Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>)
Responses Re: backtrace_on_internal_error
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2023-12-20 10:08:42 +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 at 00:14, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I'm not actually sure that the fe-secure.c part of v3-0002 is
> > necessary, because it's guarding plain recv(2) which really shouldn't
> > return -1 without setting errno.  Still, it's a pretty harmless
> > addition.
> 
> v3-0002 seems have a very similar goal to v23-0002 in my non-blocking
> and encrypted cancel request patchset here:
>
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAGECzQQirExbHe6uLa4C-sP%3DwTR1jazR_wgCWd4177QE-%3DVFDw%40mail.gmail.com#0b6cc1897c6d507cef49a3f3797181aa
> 
> Would it be possible to merge that on instead or at least use the same
> approach as that one (i.e. return -2 on EOF). Otherwise I have to
> update that patchset to match the new style of communicating that
> there is an EOF. Also I personally think a separate return value for
> EOF clearer when reading the code than checking for errno being 0.

Tom's patch imo doesn't really introduce anything really new - we already deal
with EOF that way in other places. And it's how the standard APIs deal with
the issue. I'd not design it this way on a green field, but given the current
state Tom's approach seems more sensible...

Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexander Kukushkin
Date:
Subject: Re: Allow custom parameters with more than one dot in config files.
Next
From: "Drouvot, Bertrand"
Date:
Subject: Re: Function to get invalidation cause of a replication slot.