From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Claudio Natoli" <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Bad bug in fopen() wrapper code |
Date: | 2006-09-30 17:54:30 |
Message-ID: | 14631.1159638870@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Claudio Natoli" <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> writes:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> Now, I still twist my head around the lines:
>> if ((fd = _open_osfhandle((long) h, fileFlags & O_APPEND)) < 0
>> ||
>> (fileFlags & (O_TEXT | O_BINARY) && (_setmode(fd,
>> fileFlags & (O_TEXT | O_BINARY)) < 0)))
> Without having studied it closely, it might also highlight a bug on failure of the second clause -- if the _setmode fails, shouldn't _close be called instead of CloseHandle, and -1 returned? (CloseHandle would still be called on failure of the _open_osfhandle, obviously)
I agree that this code is both wrong and unreadable (although in
practice the _setmode will probably never fail, which is why our
attention hasn't been drawn to it). Is someone going to submit a
patch? I'm hesitant to change the code myself since I'm not in
a position to test it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-09-30 18:04:04 | libedit broke in head |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-30 17:48:01 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.2beta1 w/ VALUES |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-30 18:27:29 | Re: adminpack |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-09-30 12:09:40 | strlcpy() and bsd/os |