| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| 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 14:45:48 |
| Message-ID: | 26003.1145457948@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-patches |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> 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?
The point here is that under Windows int4div seems to be generating
something other than a SIGFPE --- if it were actually generating that
particular signal then the existing SIGFPE catcher would catch it.
It's barely possible that int4div *is* generating a SIGFPE and there's
some other breakage preventing FloatExceptionHandler from catching it,
but that's a question that deserves a one-shot test, not permanent
memorialization in a regression test. Besides, if that's the situation
then testing that the handler catches kill(SIGFPE) proves exactly zero
about what the int4div problem is.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Brant | 2006-04-19 15:50:52 | Re: Permission denied on fsync / Win32 (was right |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-04-19 14:38:17 | Re: bug in windows xp |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-04-19 14:48:07 | Re: Two coverity non-bugs |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-04-19 14:38:17 | Re: bug in windows xp |