Tom Lane wrote:

>Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>  
>
>>I also changed all the pid variables to use pid_t.
>>    
>>
>
>Good, but ...
>
>  
>
>>! 	fscanf(pidf, "%u", &pid);
>>    
>>
>
>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.

cheers

andrew

In response to

• Re: [HACKERS] New pg_ctl has retrogressed in error messages at 2004-06-01 00:46:17 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: [HACKERS] New pg_ctl has retrogressed in error messages at 2004-06-01 01:27:43 from Bruce Momjian

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2004-06-01 01:27:43
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New pg_ctl has retrogressed in error messages
Previous:	From: Claudio Natoli	Date: 2004-06-01 00:55:19
	Subject: Re: Can't detect time zone

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2004-06-01 01:27:43
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New pg_ctl has retrogressed in error messages
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2004-06-01 00:46:17
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New pg_ctl has retrogressed in error messages