From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Claudio Natoli" <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bad bug in fopen() wrapper code |
Date: | 2006-09-27 07:47:21 |
Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCEA0FBED@algol.sollentuna.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> > What's bugging me is that 0 and O_EXCL give the same answer, and
> > O_TRUNC and O_TRUNC | O_EXCL give the same answer,
>
> This is ok, as (iirc) O_EXCL only has effect in the presence
> of O_CREAT.
<snip more explanation>
Thanks, Claudio!
After looking at the code some more, and actually reading up on the
specs a bit more, it certainly does look like it's safe. So I don't
think we need to do anything about that.
Now, I still twist my head around the lines:
if ((fd = _open_osfhandle((long) h, fileFlags & O_APPEND)) < 0
||
(fileFlags & (O_TEXT | O_BINARY) && (_setmode(fd,
fileFlags & (O_TEXT | O_BINARY)) < 0)))
With the _setmode() call deep in the if statement... I would suggest we
split that up into a couple of lines to make it more readable - I'm sure
all compilers will easily optimise it into the same code anyway.
Reasonable?
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2006-09-27 08:17:52 | Re: Block B-Tree concept |
Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2006-09-27 07:31:28 | Re: horo(r)logy test fail on solaris (again and solved) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeremy Drake | 2006-09-27 08:57:28 | large object regression tests, take two |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-27 02:25:48 | Re: Faster StrNCpy |