Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:35, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
BTW, it seems like it'd be a good thing if we had a Win64 machine in the
buildfarm.
Yes. I actually thought we
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:01, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
So yes, it looks completely broken. I guess Windows doesn't actually
*assign* you a handle larger than 2^32 until you actually ahve that
many open handles. Typical values on my
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 16:23, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
What's not clear to me is whether the section title means that only
certain handles have this guarantee, and if so whether we have to worry
about running into ones that don't.
I
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Do you still have a reference to the page that said they will never be
assigned that high?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms810720.aspx
which says
USER and GDI handles are sign extended 32b values
To facilitate the porting, a
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:35, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
... and if so, isn't postmaster.c's code to transfer a HANDLE value to a
child process all wet?
It is definitely 64-bit. sizeof(HANDLE)==8.
So yes, it looks completely broken. I guess Windows doesn't actually
*assign* you a
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:35, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
... and if so, isn't postmaster.c's code to transfer a HANDLE value to a
child process all wet?
It is definitely 64-bit. sizeof(HANDLE)==8.
So yes,
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:01, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:35, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
... and if so, isn't postmaster.c's code to transfer a HANDLE value to a
child process all wet?
It is definitely 64-bit. sizeof(HANDLE)==8.
So yes, it
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 15:42, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:01, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
So yes, it looks completely broken. I guess Windows doesn't actually
*assign* you a handle larger than 2^32
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 16:23, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Do you still have a reference to the page that said they will never be
assigned that high?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms810720.aspx
which says
USER and GDI handles
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 16:35, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 16:23, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
What's not clear to me is whether the section title means that only
certain handles have this guarantee, and if so
... and if so, isn't postmaster.c's code to transfer a HANDLE value to a
child process all wet?
sprintf(paramHandleStr, %lu, (DWORD) paramHandle);
...
paramHandle = (HANDLE) atol(id);
BTW, it seems like it'd be a good thing if we had a Win64 machine in the
buildfarm.
11 matches
Mail list logo
