On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:22:28AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:28:55AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Once this is applied I will work on changing the libpq socket type to
> > use portable pgsocket, but I am not planning to backpatch that unless we
> > find a bug.
>
>
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:28:55AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Once this is applied I will work on changing the libpq socket type to
> use portable pgsocket, but I am not planning to backpatch that unless we
> find a bug.
Attached is a follow up patch which stores socket values in libpq as
pgsoc
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:28:55AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:03:08AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:05:49AM +0530,
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:34:55AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I saw that yesterday and fixed it. I also did a dry run of
> > backpatching and only 8.4 had conflicts, so I think we are good there.
> > (This is like the readdir() fix all over again.)
> >
> > O
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Yes, I saw that yesterday and fixed it. I also did a dry run of
> backpatching and only 8.4 had conflicts, so I think we are good there.
> (This is like the readdir() fix all over again.)
>
> Once this is applied I will work on changing the libpq socket type to
> use por
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:03:08AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:05:49AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >> Ah, yes, good point. This is going to require b
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:05:49AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> Ah, yes, good point. This is going to require backpatching then.
>
> I also think so.
>
>>> I think it's better to use
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:05:49AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Ah, yes, good point. This is going to require backpatching then.
I also think so.
>> I think it's better to use check like below, just for matter of
>> consistency with other
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:05:49AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:45:59AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > In fact, this C program compiled by gcc on Debian issues no compiler
> > warnings and returns 'hello', showing t
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:45:59AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> In fact, this C program compiled by gcc on Debian issues no compiler
> warnings and returns 'hello', showing that -1 and ~0 compare as equal:
>
> int
> main(int ar
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:45:59AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I reviewed this patch and you are correct that we are not handling
> > socket() and accept() returns properly on Windows. We were doing it
> > properly in most place in the back
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I reviewed this patch and you are correct that we are not handling
> socket() and accept() returns properly on Windows. We were doing it
> properly in most place in the backend, but your patch fixes the
> remaining places:
>
>
> http
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 01:35:15PM +0100, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've tried to fix some bugs reported by Andrey Karpov in an article at
> http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0227/
>
> The value returned by socket() is unsigned on Windows and can thus not
> be checked if less than zero to detect an
Joel Jacobson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've tried to fix some bugs reported by Andrey Karpov in an article at
> http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0227/
>
> The value returned by socket() is unsigned on Windows and can thus not
> be checked if less than zero to detect an error, instead
> PGINVALID_SOCKET should
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've tried to fix some bugs reported by Andrey Karpov in an article at
> http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0227/
>
> The value returned by socket() is unsigned on Windows and can thus not
> be checked if less than zero to detect an error, in
Hi,
I've tried to fix some bugs reported by Andrey Karpov in an article at
http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0227/
The value returned by socket() is unsigned on Windows and can thus not
be checked if less than zero to detect an error, instead
PGINVALID_SOCKET should be used, which is hard-coded to -1 on
16 matches
Mail list logo
