Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 
> >this code will fail rather horribly if sizeof(pid_t) != sizeof(int).
> >Even more to the point, I believe a standalone backend will put
> >the negative of its PID into the file, and the revised code will fail
> >to parse that at all.
> >
> >I think the safest code would be like
> >
> >	long	tmp;
> >
> >	fscanf(pidf, "%ld", &tmp);
> >	if (tmp < 0)
> >	{
> >		tmp = -tmp;
> >		// do anything else needed for backend case
> >	}
> >	pid = (pid_t) tmp;
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> I deliberately used a signed long for these reasons in the first place.
> 
> The number of places we actually need to use this value as a pid is 
> small (3 by my count - in calls to kill() ), and it was cast there to 
> pid_t,  I think.  I still don't see what's wrong with that.

OK, I created a typedef pgpid_t equal to long and used that in the code,
change format to %ld, and documented why negative values are an issue.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

• Re: [HACKERS] New pg_ctl has retrogressed in error messages at 2004-06-01 01:07:07 from Andrew Dunstan

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Oliver Jowett	Date: 2004-06-01 01:32:32
	Subject: Re: Official Freeze Date for 7.5: July 1st, 2004
Previous:	From: Andrew Dunstan	Date: 2004-06-01 01:07:07
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New pg_ctl has retrogressed in error messages

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2004-06-01 02:01:34
	Subject: Re: CVS tip problems
Previous:	From: Andrew Dunstan	Date: 2004-06-01 01:07:07
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New pg_ctl has retrogressed in error messages