Neil Conway wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I think this is all irrelevant language-lawyering; jtv spotted the true >> problem which is that we do not protect errno during the *first* call of >> libpq_gettext. > > I think you're missing the point. Obviously the current code is wrong, > the debate is over the best way to fix it. Jeroen's interpretation of > the spec suggests that merely having libpq_gettext() preserve errno is > not sufficient. I'm not convinced this his interpretation is correct, > but it is a question worth resolving.
Agree totally. If my interpretation is wrong then I'll happily get on with my life and let everyone else do the same. I was at that point once already, but Neil took another close look at the relevant part of the C standard he dug up and found this potential problem. I really don't like playing the smart-alec language lawyer here, but I've been following compiler developments and they are moving in a direction that makes this relevant. I do want to be sure that we're shipping correct code, not just code that practically speaking suppresses the symptoms of its bugs for a while, on most compilers, for the most popular CPU architectures. Moreover, I don't want to go through all of this again when the regression occurs and we think we've solved it forever and the problem must be somewhere else. I've been losing enough sleep over what I thought must be bugs in libpqxx that I just couldn't put my finger on. Jeroen ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings