Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter(dot)Brant(at)wicourts(dot)gov
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation
Date: 2006-05-11 01:50:10
Message-ID: 200605110150.k4B1oAC17001@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Qingqing Zhou wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 7 May 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Leave 'em alone. That code has zero field validation, and should
> > > certainly not get shipped until it's survived a beta-test cycle.
> >
> > Uh, this is a bug fix, and the patch I am asking about is not the Win32
> > semaphore reimplementation but a more limited fix.
>
> Sorry for the late reply. Maybe more intensive tests are needed? Since
> this bug seems could not lead data corruption, we can wait till next bug
> report and let the user test it then decide to apply?

Well we did have a bug report by Peter Brant, and a test by him with the
patch that fixes it, so it seems it should be applied. The URLs I
posted had that information.

--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Qingqing Zhou 2006-05-11 01:57:27 Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation
Previous Message Qingqing Zhou 2006-05-11 01:38:00 Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-05-11 01:52:29 Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation
Previous Message Qingqing Zhou 2006-05-11 01:38:00 Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation