Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] adding simple sock check for windows

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: CharSyam <charsyam(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] adding simple sock check for windows
Date: 2018-04-01 05:30:07
Message-ID: 24146.1522560607@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> oops, I just saw that you have already pushed a fix for it. I am not
> sure if we should try to do anything about walrcv_receive's output
> still uses pgsocket instead of int as the usage in itself doesn't have
> any problem.

I see a few places where we're still assigning PQsocket's result to a
pgsocket variable, but none of them are worrying about the possibility
that it's not a valid socket, and I'm not sure they need to.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2018-04-01 06:17:09 Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-04-01 05:19:47 Re: lazy detoasting