Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_dump's checkSeek() seems inadequate

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump's checkSeek() seems inadequate
Date: 2010-06-27 22:05:49
Message-ID: AANLkTiko4KJ0Bc8Rbw_7eby8r9vuNPSu_oLd6ImCqeQq@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> If I change the test to be
>
>        fseeko(fp, 0, SEEK_SET)
>
> then it does the right thing.  Since checkSeek() is applied immediately
> after opening the input file this should be OK, but it does limit the
> scope of usefulness of that function.
>
> Any thoughts about whether or not to apply such a patch?  If it should
> be changed, should we back-patch it?

Well, I guess it depends on what you think the chances are that the
revised test will fail on some other obscure platform.  Have there
been any reports from the field?  If not, I might apply to HEAD and
await developments.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-06-27 22:19:02
Subject: Re: pg_dump's checkSeek() seems inadequate
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-06-27 21:55:50
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Adding XMLEXISTS to the grammar

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group