> -----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] postmaster.pid
> 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?
pgsql-hackers-win32 by date
|Next:||From: Johan Paul Glutting||Date: 2004-08-25 07:59:38|
|Subject: Re: pg_dump and pg_restore in batch scripts|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2004-08-25 07:54:43|
|Subject: Re: postmaster.pid|