Re: bug in windows xp

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Wang Haiyong <wanghaiyong(at)neusoft(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: bug in windows xp
Date: 2006-04-19 14:45:48
Message-ID: 26003.1145457948@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-patches

Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> Well, depends how you look at it. The original bug report was about a
> backend crash, which is what happens if you don't catch the SIGFPE. Can
> we guarentee that we know every situation that might generate a SIGFPE?

The point here is that under Windows int4div seems to be generating
something other than a SIGFPE --- if it were actually generating that
particular signal then the existing SIGFPE catcher would catch it.

It's barely possible that int4div *is* generating a SIGFPE and there's
some other breakage preventing FloatExceptionHandler from catching it,
but that's a question that deserves a one-shot test, not permanent
memorialization in a regression test. Besides, if that's the situation
then testing that the handler catches kill(SIGFPE) proves exactly zero
about what the int4div problem is.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Brant 2006-04-19 15:50:52 Re: Permission denied on fsync / Win32 (was right
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-04-19 14:38:17 Re: bug in windows xp

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-04-19 14:48:07 Re: Two coverity non-bugs
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-04-19 14:38:17 Re: bug in windows xp