Re: [PATCHES] postmaster.pid

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: 26 August 2004 15:43
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Magnus Hagander; Tom Lane; 
> [email protected]; PostgreSQL-patches
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [pgsql-hackers-win32] postmaster.pid
> 
> 
> Should we (if only for the sake of completeness) make the 
> converse one-byte change in port/win32/signal.c?
> 
> It says:
> 
> void
> pg_queue_signal(int signum)
> {
>     if (signum >= PG_SIGNAL_COUNT || signum < 0)
>         return;
>  ...
> 
> ISTM we should not ever queue any event for signal 0.

That was my original intention, however Magnus thought it best just to
let it be queued and subsequently ignored by the backend - thinking
about it 15 minutes later I can't for the life of me think why that's
any better...

Regards, Dave.

Index: backend/port/win32/signal.c
===================================================================
RCS file:
/projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/backend/port/win32/signal.c,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -r1.4 signal.c
--- backend/port/win32/signal.c	24 Jun 2004 21:02:42 -0000	1.4
+++ backend/port/win32/signal.c	26 Aug 2004 14:58:25 -0000
@@ -162,7 +162,7 @@
 void
 pg_queue_signal(int signum)
 {
-	if (signum >= PG_SIGNAL_COUNT || signum < 0)
+	if (signum >= PG_SIGNAL_COUNT || signum <= 0)
 		return;
 
 	EnterCriticalSection(&pg_signal_crit_sec);
Index: port/kill.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/port/kill.c,v
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.2 kill.c
--- port/kill.c	24 Jun 2004 18:53:48 -0000	1.2
+++ port/kill.c	26 Aug 2004 14:58:28 -0000
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
 	BYTE		sigRet = 0;
 	DWORD		bytes;
 
-	if (sig >= PG_SIGNAL_COUNT || sig <= 0)
+	if (sig >= PG_SIGNAL_COUNT || sig < 0)
 	{
 		errno = EINVAL;
 		return -1;

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

               http://archives.postgresql.org