On 03.09.21 01:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mario Emmenlauer writes:
>> The idea to switch to dup(2) sounds very good to me.
>
> I poked at this some more, and verified that adding "fclose(stdin);"
> at the head of PostmasterMain is enough to trigger the reported
> failure. However, after changing fd.c
Mario Emmenlauer writes:
> The idea to switch to dup(2) sounds very good to me.
I poked at this some more, and verified that adding "fclose(stdin);"
at the head of PostmasterMain is enough to trigger the reported
failure. However, after changing fd.c to dup stderr not stdin,
we can pass check-wo
Mario Emmenlauer writes:
> The idea to switch to dup(2) sounds very good to me. Also, while at it,
> maybe the error message could be improved? The kids nowadays don't learn
> so much about system I/O any more, and if someone does not know `dup()`,
> then the error message is not very telling. It
On 01.09.21 15:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mario Emmenlauer writes:
>> On 05.10.20 14:35, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Mario Emmenlauer writes:
I get reproducibly the error:
2020-10-05 11:48:19.720 CEST [84731] WARNING: dup(0) failed after 0
successes: Bad file descriptor
>
>>> Hmph. That cod
[ redirecting to -hackers ]
Mario Emmenlauer writes:
> On 05.10.20 14:35, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Mario Emmenlauer writes:
>>> I get reproducibly the error:
>>> 2020-10-05 11:48:19.720 CEST [84731] WARNING: dup(0) failed after 0
>>> successes: Bad file descriptor
>> Hmph. That code loop assumes t
