|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|Subject:||Re: Tiny patch: sigmask.diff|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> sigmask macro is defined in win32.h like this:
> #define sigmask(sig) ( 1 << ((sig)-1) )
> And used in signal.c in this fashion:
> for (i = 0; i < PG_SIGNAL_COUNT; i++)
> if (exec_mask & sigmask(i))
> Thus during first iteration we are doing `<< -1`. I think it's a bug.
> Patch attached.
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.
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.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Craig Ringer||2016-04-04 14:59:41||Re: Timeline following for logical slots|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2016-04-04 14:24:33||Re: postgres_fdw : altering foreign table not invalidating prepare statement execution plan.|