Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] postmaster.pid - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] postmaster.pid
Date
Msg-id 412DF6D8.6070108@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] postmaster.pid  ("Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>)
List pgsql-patches
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.

cheers

andrew


Dave Page wrote:

>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:mha@sollentuna.net]
>>Sent: 25 August 2004 14:59
>>To: Tom Lane
>>Cc: Dave Page; pgsql-hackers-win32@postgresql.org
>>Subject: RE: [pgsql-hackers-win32] postmaster.pid
>>
>>Ok, if you say so :-) I had the general impression we wanted
>>that. But then let's go with the
>>send-signal-0-down-the-pipe-and-ignore-it-in-the-backend. :-)
>>
>>
>
>Here's the massive 1 byte change required to do just that :-)
>
>Regards, Dave.
>
>
>===================================================================
>RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/port/kill.c,v
>retrieving revision 1.2
>diff -u -r1.2 kill.c
>--- kill.c    24 Jun 2004 18:53:48 -0000    1.2
>+++ kill.c    26 Aug 2004 14:07:49 -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 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>    (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
>
>
>

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: "Dave Page"
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Service startup delay
Next
From: "Dave Page"
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] postmaster.pid