Thread: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove unsafe calling of WSAStartup and WSA Cleanup from DllMain.

On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 08:16:12AM +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>For example, do you recall us being confused
> >>when we found we needed to call it in slon.exe?
> >
> >Eh, no, actually not. Sorry.
> 
> Well, it was only a couple of years ago!! Seriously though, from what I 
> recall that was the origin of this code - you left it out because libpq 
> called WSAStartup on your system, and I added it because on mine it 
> didn't. Or something like that. I remember us getting confused about it 
> on IM anyway.

Hmm. Was that actually fort he libpq stuff, though? I don't recall it
clearly, but somethign tells me the problem was around the pipe
emulation and not around libpq.

In which case it can simply be because I was building against a libpq
built with MSVC = it had the broken startup code, and you used a mingw
one, which didn't have it.

Per the docs, an application like slon *should* make it's own call to
WSAStartup() because it uses socket functions diretly (port/pipe.c)...


Another question related to backpatching - should I backpatch this to
8.1 and 8.0 as well? I know we said we more or less don't maintain the
win32 port back there because it was too new, but this is all code in
the client libpq, which has been around no win32 much longer. The reason
I'm asking is that the original reporter of this problem is on 8.1...

I'm leaning towards yes, but would like to hear further comments...

//Magnus

Magnus Hagander wrote:

> In which case it can simply be because I was building against a libpq
> built with MSVC = it had the broken startup code, and you used a mingw
> one, which didn't have it.

Maybe - but it does imply it's potentially easy to break code with this 
change.

> Per the docs, an application like slon *should* make it's own call to
> WSAStartup() because it uses socket functions diretly (port/pipe.c)...
> 
> 
> Another question related to backpatching - should I backpatch this to
> 8.1 and 8.0 as well? I know we said we more or less don't maintain the
> win32 port back there because it was too new, but this is all code in
> the client libpq, which has been around no win32 much longer. The reason
> I'm asking is that the original reporter of this problem is on 8.1...
> 
> I'm leaning towards yes, but would like to hear further comments...

I'm far from convinced it should be backpatched at all.

/D

Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> writes:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Another question related to backpatching - should I backpatch this to
>> 8.1 and 8.0 as well?

> I'm far from convinced it should be backpatched at all.

I tend to agree with Dave --- I think this change needs to go through a
beta-testing cycle before we unleash it on the world.
        regards, tom lane