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 (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to