Re: postmaster.pid

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: 24 August 2004 18:17
> To: Andrew Dunstan
> Cc: Dave Page; Barry Lind; 
> [email protected]; Max Dunn
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] postmaster.pid 
> 
> Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Should you not send the zero signal the same way as other signals, 
> >> and just let the recipient ignore it?
> 
> > So Dave's patch is clearly wrong where it returns EINVAL. How we 
> > should distinguish between the other two cases I am less sure of - 
> > IANAWP ;-)

Hey, I did say it was a quick hack! 

> I think we could just return ESRCH always if we have no pipe 
> for the process.  The callers will actually treat these 
> errnos the same anyway.

OK - do you want me to post a corrected patch to -patches, or will you
correct and commit my previous post?

Regards, Dave

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
      joining column's datatypes do not match