On 3/17/23 16:43, gkokolatos@pm.me wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I agree it's cleaner the way you did it.
>>
>> I was thinking that with each compression function handling error
>> internally, the callers would not need to do that. But I haven't
>> realized there's logic to detect ENOSPC and so on, and we'd need to
>> duplicate that in every compression func.
>>
>
> If you agree, I can prepare a patch to improve on the error handling
> aspect of the API as a separate thread, since here we are trying to
> focus on correctness.
>
Yes, that makes sense. There are far too many patches in this thread
already ...
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
