On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:05:49AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> Ah, yes, good point. This is going to require backpatching then.
>
> I also think so.
>
>>> I think it's better to use check like below, just for matter of
>>> consistency with other place
>>> if (sock == INVALID_SOCKET)
>>
>> Agreed. That is how I have coded the patch.
>
> Sorry, I didn't checked the latest patch before that comment.
>
> I verified that your last patch is fine. Regression test also went fine.
I have noticed small thing which I forgot to mention in previous mail.
I think below added extra line is not required.
int
PQsocket(const PGconn *conn)
{
+
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
