On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:24:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> read() is required by spec to set errno when returning a negative result.
> I think the previous coding paid attention to errno regardless of the sign
> of the result, which would justify pre-zeroing it ... but the new coding
> definitely doesn't.
Yes, my point is a bit different though.. Do you think that we need to
bother about the case where errno is not 0 before calling read(), in the
case where it returns a positive result? This would mean that errno
would still have a previous errno set, still it returned a number of
bytes read. For the code paths discussed here that visibly does not
matter so you are right, we could remove them, still patterns get easily
copy-pasted around...
--
Michael