From: | CharSyam <charsyam(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] adding simple sock check for windows |
Date: | 2018-03-31 06:12:46 |
Message-ID: | CAMrLSE7CC1=LHH5r+mHooS44ny=B69=qKMEVONVJt7NM41CzDg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, Amit, It's good question. I also thought about it.
But, I want to leave original code intention.
Actually I think there is no case ( slot->sock is not PGINVALID_SOCKET
and slot->sock < 0)
but if original code want to check (sock < -1)
I think it is better to leave that condition.
but I think slot->sock == PGINVALID_SOCKET is enough
2018-03-31 14:38 GMT+09:00 Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 8:10 PM, CharSyam <charsyam(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hi, I found some missing check for windows int init_slot function in vacuumdb.c
>>
>> in windows
>> SOCKET is unsigned type. so
>>
>> slot->sock < 0 never can be under 0.
>>
>> so this patch just check using slot->sock == PGINVALID_SOCKET
>>
>
> - if (slot->sock < 0)
> + if (slot->sock == PGINVALID_SOCKET || slot->sock < 0)
>
> If you are checking for PGINVALID_SOCKET, why do you need the second
> part of check (slot->sock < 0)?
>
> --
> With Regards,
> Amit Kapila.
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-03-31 06:17:47 | Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] adding simple sock check for windows |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-03-31 05:46:10 | Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. |