Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Revised patch attached, doing just this. I will apply it soon unless 
> there are objections.

Probably a good idea to check defined(HAVE_GETRLIMIT) && defined(RLIMIT_CORE),
rather than naively assuming every getrlimit implementation supports
that particular setting.  Also, should the -c option exist but just not
do anything if the platform doesn't support it?  As is, you're making it
impossible to just specify -c without worrying if it does anything.

The documentation fails to list the long form of the switch
(--corefiles, which should probably really be --core-files for consistency).
There's a typo in this message, too:

+ 				_("%s: cannot set core size,: disallowed by hard limit.\n"), 

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: [HACKERS] Recent SIGSEGV failures in buildfarm HEAD at 2007-01-02 20:54:59 from Andrew Dunstan

Responses

• Re: [HACKERS] Recent SIGSEGV failures in buildfarm HEAD at 2007-01-02 21:16:42 from Andrew Dunstan

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Andrew Dunstan	Date: 2007-01-02 21:16:42
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Recent SIGSEGV failures in buildfarm HEAD
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2007-01-02 20:59:34
	Subject: Re: Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: Andrew Dunstan	Date: 2007-01-02 21:16:42
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Recent SIGSEGV failures in buildfarm HEAD
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2007-01-02 20:59:34
	Subject: Re: Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and