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.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to