| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Wang Haiyong <wanghaiyong(at)neusoft(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: bug in windows xp |
| Date: | 2006-04-19 14:38:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20060419143817.GJ15420@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-patches |
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 10:15:54AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> > Not that I know of. However, the first step is to add this regression
> > test for SIGFPE [-patches CCed].
>
> This seems completely pointless. The question is not about whether the
> SIGFPE catcher works when fired, it's about what conditions trigger it.
Well, depends how you look at it. The original bug report was about a
backend crash, which is what happens if you don't catch the SIGFPE. Can
we guarentee that we know every situation that might generate a SIGFPE?
Besides, isn't this what you were referring to here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2006-04/msg00091.php
Otherwise we should just fix int4div.
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-19 14:45:48 | Re: bug in windows xp |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-19 14:15:54 | Re: bug in windows xp |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-19 14:45:48 | Re: bug in windows xp |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-19 14:32:21 | Re: Two coverity non-bugs |