Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> No, I believe we are OK everywhere else. �We are only ignoring the
>> result in cases where we are trying to report errors in the first place.
> The relevant code is:
> while (len > PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD)
> {
> p.proto.is_last = (dest == LOG_DESTINATION_CSVLOG ? 'F' : 'f');
> p.proto.len = PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD;
> memcpy(p.proto.data, data, PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD);
> write(fd, &p, PIPE_HEADER_SIZE + PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD);
> data += PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD;
> len -= PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD;
> }
> Which it seems to me we could change by doing rc = write(). Then if
> rc <= 0, we bail out. If not, we add and subtract rc, rather than
> PIPE_MAX_PAYLOAD. That would be barely more code, probably safer, and
> would silence the warning.
And it would break the code. The whole point here is that the message
must be sent indivisibly.
regards, tom lane