On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 03:55:28PM +0000, Rick Macklem wrote: > ps: When I re-read it, the comment I made related to Bruce's "wrong" > was blunt (or maybe rude). It's OK! I'm possibly being annoying about this kinda trivial thing anyway. > I apologize for the tone. All I had intended to say was "although it > might not be our preferred semantic, it appears to clear and > implementable, so I do not think it can be "clarified" to be the way > the Linux server does it". I actually prefer the way the Linux server > does it, but it is too late now, imho. For the COPY case at least, implementations seem to be rare and new. Is it really that trivial to fix up the mismatch? Actually, I guess so: if I'm implementing the copy using read and write, then a 0-length read result from a nonzero read call can only mean end of file, so there's no need to do a second check of the file length or anything. Hm. --b.
