Re: [HACKERS] 0x1A in control file on Windows

Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>
>>> ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>>>> We probably need to add PG_BINARY when we open control files
>>>> because 0x1A is an end-of-file marker on Windows.
>>> Well, why is that a bug? If the platform is so silly as to define text
>>> files that way, who are we to argue?
>>
>> Google says it is for for backward compatibility with CP/M
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-of-file
>> and adding O_BINARY is the answer.
>>
>> http://codenewbie.com/forum/standard-c-c/1208-binary-i-o-file-reading-0x1a-trouble.html
>>
>
> Yes, apparently that's exactly why we have PG_BINARY, see c.h:
>
>> /*
>> * NOTE: this is also used for opening text files.
>> * WIN32 treats Control-Z as EOF in files opened in text mode.
>> * Therefore, we open files in binary mode on Win32 so we can read
>> * literal control-Z. The other affect is that we see CRLF, but
>> * that is OK because we can already handle those cleanly.
>> */
>> #if defined(WIN32) || defined(__CYGWIN__)
>> #define PG_BINARY O_BINARY
>> #define PG_BINARY_A "ab"
>> #define PG_BINARY_R "rb"
>> #define PG_BINARY_W "wb"
>> #else
>> #define PG_BINARY 0
>> #define PG_BINARY_A "a"
>> #define PG_BINARY_R "r"
>> #define PG_BINARY_W "w"
>> #endif
>
> I don't see anything wrong with the patch, but I wonder if there's more
> open() calls that need the same treatment? Like the one in
> pg_resetxlog.c/ReadControlFile().

Agreed, and I think that one would also need it - and pg_resetxlog
already does this when it writes the file. A quick look doesn't show any
other places, but I may have missed some?

/Magnus