| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Detecting glibc getopt? |
| Date: | 2001-10-20 11:46:23 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0110201136380.827-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> The reason we see this now, and didn't see it before, is that
> I rearranged startup to set the ps process title as soon as possible
> after forking a subprocess --- and at least on Linux machines, that
> "nextchar" pointer is pointing into the argv array that's overwritten
> by init_ps_display.
How about copying the entire argv[] array to a new location before the
very first call to getopt(). Then you can use getopt() without hackery
and can do anything you want to the "real" argv area. That should be a
lot safer. (We don't know yet what other platforms might play
optimization tricks in getopt().)
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron de Jong | 2001-10-20 15:24:39 | Re: Is there no "DESCRIBE <TABLE>;" on PGSQL? help!!! |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-10-20 11:46:15 | Re: To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the select limit |