Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Huh ... I'd forgotten about that ... although it seems to work only for
>>> rather small values of "work", since the WIN32 code path isn't paying
>>> attention to the "who" argument.
>
>> True, but it works for this case :-)
>
> Shouldn't we at least make it fail with EINVAL if "who" doesn't match
> whichever semantics this code is able to implement?
>
> [ not relevant to the immediate patch, I suppose, but it might save some
> tears later. ]
Yeah, we only ever call it asking for our own process, but I guess we
might at some point in the future change that, so it can't hurt.. Want
me to do it, or will you?
//Magnus
