Re: win32 socket definition

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: win32 socket definition
Date: 2010-01-10 06:23:50
Message-ID: 25748.1263104630@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 22:42, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Can't think of one, but you could try grepping for the socket-related
>> syscalls to see what variables are referenced there.

> Found two more by going over it again that way.

> Unless there are objections, I will apply this version tomorrow.

There's another copy of ListenSocket[] in the BackendParameters struct.
I also wonder about postmaster.c's habit of using -1 for empty slots
in ListenSocket ... how safe is that for Win64?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-01-10 06:27:20 Re: Feature patch 1 for plperl [PATCH]
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-01-10 06:16:13 Re: Initial refactoring of plperl.c - updated