Re: [PATCHES] postmaster.pid

Should we (if only for the sake of completeness) make the converse
one-byte change in port/win32/signal.c?

It says:

void
pg_queue_signal(int signum)
{
if (signum >= PG_SIGNAL_COUNT || signum < 0)
return;
...

ISTM we should not ever queue any event for signal 0.

cheers

andrew

Dave Page wrote:

>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net]
>>Sent: 25 August 2004 14:59
>>To: Tom Lane
>>Cc: Dave Page; pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org
>>Subject: RE: [pgsql-hackers-win32] postmaster.pid
>>
>>Ok, if you say so :-) I had the general impression we wanted
>>that. But then let's go with the
>>send-signal-0-down-the-pipe-and-ignore-it-in-the-backend. :-)
>>
>>
>
>Here's the massive 1 byte change required to do just that :-)
>
>Regards, Dave.
>
>
>===================================================================
>RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/port/kill.c,v
>retrieving revision 1.2
>diff -u -r1.2 kill.c
>--- kill.c 24 Jun 2004 18:53:48 -0000 1.2
>+++ kill.c 26 Aug 2004 14:07:49 -0000
>@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
> BYTE sigRet = 0;
> DWORD bytes;
>
>- if (sig >= PG_SIGNAL_COUNT || sig <= 0)
>+ if (sig >= PG_SIGNAL_COUNT || sig < 0)
> {
> errno = EINVAL;
> return -1;
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>
>
>