Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 05:25:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Given this, perhaps the proper approach should instead be to just check >>> the return value, and go from there? Should be a simple enough patch, >>> something like the attached. >>> Tom, can you comment? >> Testing against INT_MAX seems like a type pun, or something. Maybe use >> MaxAllocSize instead? > > The windows API documentation specifically says: > On an error, each function sets errno and returns INT_MAX. > > So actually an equality test against INT_MAX would be correct. But making > that clear in the comment would probably not be a bad idea :-)
I have applied a fix for this, because it obviously needed fixing regardless of if it fixes the original issue all the way. Still looking for confirmation if it does, though. //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
