Tom Lane wrote:
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. ]
Yeah, we only ever call it asking for our own process, but I guess we
might at some point in the future change that, so it can't hurt.. Want
me to do it, or will you?
//Magnus
--
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
