On 04/17/2014 12:08 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> For the create case, I'm wondering if we should put the block that >>>>> tests for !hmap *before* the _dosmaperr() and check for EEXIST. What >>>>> is your opinion? >>>> >>>> Either way is okay, but I think the way you are suggesting is better as it >>>> will make code consistent with other place (PGSharedMemoryCreate()). >>> >>> OK, can you prepare a patch? >> >> Please find attached patch to address this issue. >> One minor point to note is that now we have to call GetLastError() twice, >> once inside error path and once to check EEXIST, but I think that is okay >> as existing code in PGSharedMemoryCreate() does it that way. > > OK. I committed this blindly, but I don't have a Windows dev > environment, so please keep an eye on the Windows buildfarm members > and provide follow-on patches if any of them get unhappy about this.
Given that we're doing this a fair bit, is it reasonable to define a "master-next" branch in git and have the buildfarm (or at least the Windows members) build that? Permit master-next to be rebased and reset. That way it's possible to fire stuff off and see what happens on the buildfarm without introducing broken commits unnecessarily. Thoughts? -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
