Should we (if only for the sake of completeness) make the converse one-byte change in port/win32/signal.c?
It says:
void
pg_queue_signal(int signum)
{
if (signum >= PG_SIGNAL_COUNT || signum < 0)
return;
...ISTM we should not ever queue any event for signal 0.
cheers
andrew
Dave Page wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 August 2004 14:59
To: Tom Lane
Cc: Dave Page; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [pgsql-hackers-win32] postmaster.pid
Ok, if you say so :-) I had the general impression we wanted that. But then let's go with the send-signal-0-down-the-pipe-and-ignore-it-in-the-backend. :-)
Here's the massive 1 byte change required to do just that :-)
Regards, Dave.
=================================================================== RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/port/kill.c,v retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.2 kill.c --- kill.c 24 Jun 2004 18:53:48 -0000 1.2 +++ kill.c 26 Aug 2004 14:07:49 -0000 @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ BYTE sigRet = 0; DWORD bytes;
- if (sig >= PG_SIGNAL_COUNT || sig <= 0) + if (sig >= PG_SIGNAL_COUNT || sig < 0) { errno = EINVAL; return -1;
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
