| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump's checkSeek() seems inadequate |
| Date: | 2010-06-27 22:05:49 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTiko4KJ0Bc8Rbw_7eby8r9vuNPSu_oLd6ImCqeQq@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> If I change the test to be
>
> fseeko(fp, 0, SEEK_SET)
>
> then it does the right thing. Since checkSeek() is applied immediately
> after opening the input file this should be OK, but it does limit the
> scope of usefulness of that function.
>
> Any thoughts about whether or not to apply such a patch? If it should
> be changed, should we back-patch it?
Well, I guess it depends on what you think the chances are that the
revised test will fail on some other obscure platform. Have there
been any reports from the field? If not, I might apply to HEAD and
await developments.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-27 22:19:02 | Re: pg_dump's checkSeek() seems inadequate |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-27 21:55:50 | Re: [PATCH] Re: Adding XMLEXISTS to the grammar |