From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Charles Duffy" <charles(dot)duffy(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] putting CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in qsort_comparetup() |
Date: | 2006-07-14 19:12:57 |
Message-ID: | 200607142112.58655.peter_e@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> We might have to just tolerate this, but if it occurs on a lot of
> platforms I'd have second thoughts about applying the patch. Anyone
> familiar with the internals of glibc's qsort, in particular?
Doesn't look like it's allocating any nonlocal memory:
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-14 19:26:55 | Re: [HACKERS] putting CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in qsort_comparetup() |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-07-14 18:43:54 | Re: contrib promotion? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-07-14 19:23:21 | Re: Maintenance and External Projects (try 2) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-14 18:43:35 | Re: putting CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in qsort_comparetup() |