Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)


From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: "Barry Lind" <blind(at)xythos(dot)com>,<pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Max Dunn" <mdunn(at)xythos(dot)com>
Subject: Re:
Date: 2004-08-25 07:56:05
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us] 
> Sent: 24 August 2004 18:17
> To: Andrew Dunstan
> Cc: Dave Page; Barry Lind; 
> pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org; Max Dunn
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] 
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Should you not send the zero signal the same way as other signals, 
> >> and just let the recipient ignore it?
> > So Dave's patch is clearly wrong where it returns EINVAL. How we 
> > should distinguish between the other two cases I am less sure of - 
> > IANAWP ;-)

Hey, I did say it was a quick hack! 

> I think we could just return ESRCH always if we have no pipe 
> for the process.  The callers will actually treat these 
> errnos the same anyway.

OK - do you want me to post a corrected patch to -patches, or will you
correct and commit my previous post?

Regards, Dave


pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Johan Paul GluttingDate: 2004-08-25 07:59:38
Subject: Re: pg_dump and pg_restore in batch scripts
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2004-08-25 07:54:43
Subject: Re:

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group