Re: pg_verify_checksums vs windows - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: pg_verify_checksums vs windows
Date
Msg-id CABUevEzq-5dYujwGUqv8U973EdSRz8kPCTRfTdHOskKCETBYzg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to pg_verify_checksums vs windows  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg_verify_checksums vs windows
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
While trying to debug a recent bug report on hash indexes [1], I
noticed that pg_verify_checksums don't work on Windows (or at least in
my environment).

initdb -k ..\..\data
pg_verify_checksums.exe  ..\..\Data
pg_verify_checksums: short read of block 0 in file
"..\..\Data/global/1136", got only 15 bytes

I have debugged and found that below code is the culprit.

scan_file(char *fn, int segmentno)
{
..
f = open(fn, 0);
..
int r = read(f, buf, BLCKSZ);

if (r == 0)
break;

if (r != BLCKSZ)
{
fprintf(stderr, _("%s: short read of block %d in file \"%s\", got only
%d bytes\n"),
progname, blockno, fn, r);
exit(1);
}
..
}

We are opening the file in text mode and trying to read the BLCKSZ
bytes, however, if there is any Control-Z char, it is treated as EOF.
This problem has been mentioned in the comments in c.h as follows:
/*
 * NOTE:  this is also used for opening text files.
 * WIN32 treats Control-Z as EOF in files opened in text mode.
 * Therefore, we open files in binary mode on Win32 so we can read
 * literal control-Z.  The other affect is that we see CRLF, but
 * that is OK because we can already handle those cleanly.
 */

So, I think we need to open the file in binary mode as in other parts
of the code.  The attached patch fixes the problem for me.

Thoughts?

Yikes. Yes, I believe you are correct, and that looks like the correct fix.

I wonder why this was not caught on the buildfarm. We do have regression tests for it, AFAIK? Or maybe we just lucked out there because there was no ^Z char in the files there?


--

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Yugo Nagata
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_verify_checksums -d option (was: Re: pg_verify_checksums -roption)
Next
From: Michael Banck
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_verify_checksums -d option (was: Re: pg_verify_checksums -roption)