| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'Magnus Hagander'" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: APC/socket fix (final?) |
| Date: | 2004-03-26 22:40:28 |
| Message-ID: | 27991.1080340828@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> writes:
> ... However, it just occured to me that
> we could wrap select() by augmenting the read_mask with an addition socket,
> that we know will never be touched, and checking this socket on a "valid"
> return. If this socket is still set, we know we got bitten by the APC/socket
> interaction bug, and can set errno accordingly.
What happens if the socket() call fails? Even if it succeeds, I don't
know what the semantics are of selecting on an un-bound socket ... it
might perhaps show as error state, for instance.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Natoli | 2004-03-26 22:47:14 | Re: APC/socket fix (final?) |
| Previous Message | Claudio Natoli | 2004-03-26 22:34:37 | Re: APC/socket fix (final?) |