From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter(dot)Brant(at)wicourts(dot)gov |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation |
Date: | 2006-05-11 01:50:10 |
Message-ID: | 200605110150.k4B1oAC17001@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Qingqing Zhou wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 7 May 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Leave 'em alone. That code has zero field validation, and should
> > > certainly not get shipped until it's survived a beta-test cycle.
> >
> > Uh, this is a bug fix, and the patch I am asking about is not the Win32
> > semaphore reimplementation but a more limited fix.
>
> Sorry for the late reply. Maybe more intensive tests are needed? Since
> this bug seems could not lead data corruption, we can wait till next bug
> report and let the user test it then decide to apply?
Well we did have a bug report by Peter Brant, and a test by him with the
patch that fixes it, so it seems it should be applied. The URLs I
posted had that information.
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2006-05-11 01:57:27 | Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation |
Previous Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2006-05-11 01:38:00 | Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-05-11 01:52:29 | Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation |
Previous Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2006-05-11 01:38:00 | Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation |