|From:||Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Subject:||Re: Tiny patch: sigmask.diff|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> 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
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.
|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|