Re: Re: ZeroFill(.../pg_xlog/xlogtemp.20148) failed: No such file or directory
Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Chris Jones <chris@mt.sri.com>, Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Date: 2001-05-23T20:54:27Z
Lists: pgsql-general
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> writes: > > Probably true, but on Unix you certainly can't assume that write will > > set errno if it does not return -1. > > Right. The code you propose is isomorphic to what I suggested > originally. The question is which error condition should we assume > if errno has not been set; is disk-full sufficiently likely to be the > cause that we should just say that, or are there plausible alternatives? Sufficiently likely? Dunno. I can think of some other possibilities. If the file is on a file system mounted via NFS or any other remote file system, you might get any number of errors. If there is a disk error after at least one disk block has been copied and written, the kernel might return a short count. If the kernel is severely overloaded, and fails to allocate a buffer after allocating and writing at least one buffer successfully, it might return a short count. If the file is very large, and the write would push it over the maximum file size, you might get a short count up to the maximum file size. A similar case might happen if the file is closed to the process resource limit (RLIMIT_FSIZE). I assume we can rule out cases like a write from a buffer at the end of user memory such that some data can be copied into kernel space and then a segmentation violation occurs--on some systems that could cause a short count if a full block can be written before the invalid memory is reached. Obviously a full disk is the most likely case. This is particularly true if the write is for less than a full disk block. But otherwise I could believe that at least the disk error case might happen to somebody someday. Ian