On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 06:08:06PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx <Q@ping.be> writes:
> > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 05:19:17PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> After reviewing the proposed patch, I find it hard to believe that the
> >> patch would have fixed any such problem ---
>
> > It's not the key (key_t) that is the problem, but the size, which
> > used to be int but got replaced by a size_t.
>
> I don't see a problem there either. We don't create shmem segments
> larger than 2Gb (and if we wanted to do so, this patch certainly
> isn't enough to get it done --- all the arithmetic for shmem sizing
> is int).
You're right that it shouldn't cause any problems because of the
promotion rules. But changing the size to an size_t wouldn't be
a bad thing.
He seems to have changed this too:
- typedef uint32 IpcMemoryKey;
+ typedef size_t IpcMemoryKey;
That really should be a key_t. Can't we use a key_t on systems
that have it? The oldest sources I could find for shmget() all
said key_t. And typedef key_t to an int for those that don't
have it?
Kurt
