Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Huh ... I'd forgotten about that ... although it seems to work only for >> rather small values of "work", since the WIN32 code path isn't paying >> attention to the "who" argument.
> True, but it works for this case :-) Shouldn't we at least make it fail with EINVAL if "who" doesn't match whichever semantics this code is able to implement? [ not relevant to the immediate patch, I suppose, but it might save some tears later. ] regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches