From: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Tiny patch: sigmask.diff |
Date: | 2016-04-04 15:19:46 |
Message-ID: | 20160404181946.4fc88bfe@fujitsu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Surely this fix is completely wrong? You'd have to touch every use of
> signum() to do it like that. You'd also be introducing similarly-
> undefined behavior at the other end of the loop, where this coding
> would be asking to compute 1<<31, hence shifting into the sign bit,
> which is undefined unless you make the computation explicitly
> unsigned.
Oh, I didn't think about that...
> I think better is just to change the for-loop to iterate from 1 not 0.
> Signal 0 is invalid anyway, and is rejected in pg_queue_signal for
> example, so there can't be any event waiting there.
Agreed.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
http://eax.me/
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
sigmask-v2.diff | text/x-patch | 477 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-04 15:21:15 | Re: [PROPOSAL] Client Log Output Filtering |
Previous Message | David Steele | 2016-04-04 15:17:11 | Re: [PROPOSAL] Client Log Output Filtering |