Aleksander Alekseev <a.aleks...@postgrespro.ru> writes: > sigmask macro is defined in win32.h like this: > #define sigmask(sig) ( 1 << ((sig)-1) )
> And used in signal.c in this fashion: > for (i = 0; i < PG_SIGNAL_COUNT; i++) > if (exec_mask & sigmask(i)) > Thus during first iteration we are doing `<< -1`. I think it's a bug. Agreed. > Patch attached. Surely this fix is completely wrong? You'd have to touch every use of signum() to do it like that. You'd also be introducing similarly- undefined behavior at the other end of the loop, where this coding would be asking to compute 1<<31, hence shifting into the sign bit, which is undefined unless you make the computation explicitly unsigned. I think better is just to change the for-loop to iterate from 1 not 0. Signal 0 is invalid anyway, and is rejected in pg_queue_signal for example, so there can't be any event waiting there. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers