Re: bufmgr and smgr don't talk to each other, apparently - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: bufmgr and smgr don't talk to each other, apparently
Date
Msg-id 9689.964886366@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: bufmgr and smgr don't talk to each other, apparently  ("Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
>> (at least since 6.3): bufmgr.c expects that I/O errors will result in
>> an SM_FAIL return code from the smgr.c routines, but smgr.c does no
>> such thing: it does elog(ERROR) if it sees a failure.  All of the

> except smgropen().

Right.  I'm mainly looking at the block read/write/flush calls,
which have a lot of now-useless error recovery code after them.

> I also prefer the latter. Even though smgr returns SM_FAIL,md stuff
> already calls elog(ERROR) in many places.

Good point, and the fd.c level may have some elogs too...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Fwd: Postgres update
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Anyone care about type "filename" ?