> 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.
Oh, I didn't think about that...
> 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.
Agreed.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
http://eax.me/
diff --git a/src/backend/port/win32/signal.c b/src/backend/port/win32/signal.c
index 36c6ebd..0ba2817 100644
--- a/src/backend/port/win32/signal.c
+++ b/src/backend/port/win32/signal.c
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals(void)
/* One or more unblocked signals queued for execution */
int exec_mask = UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE();
- for (i = 0; i < PG_SIGNAL_COUNT; i++)
+ for (i = 1; i < PG_SIGNAL_COUNT; i++)
{
if (exec_mask & sigmask(i))
{
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
