From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Bad bug in fopen() wrapper code |
Date: | 2006-09-24 17:16:08 |
Message-ID: | 8015.1159118168@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
> That is part of the original open() code that Claudio did back for 8.0,
> so it has definitly been working since then.
Hm, maybe best not to touch it, but still...
> I haven't really read into
> the code, though... But a qiuck look doesn't show me any place wher eit
> does ignore O_EXCL - which combination would that be?
What's bugging me is that 0 and O_EXCL give the same answer, and
O_TRUNC and O_TRUNC | O_EXCL give the same answer, but O_CREAT and
O_CREAT | O_EXCL give different answers, as do O_CREAT | O_TRUNC
and O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_EXCL. I'm also pretty suspicious of
both O_CREAT | O_EXCL and O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_EXCL giving the
same answer. However, I have no idea what the semantics are of
the symbols the function is mapping into, so maybe it's OK.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-24 17:21:04 | Re: Bad bug in fopen() wrapper code |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-24 17:11:03 | Re: Updates to pg_regress.c |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-24 17:21:04 | Re: Bad bug in fopen() wrapper code |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-24 17:11:03 | Re: Updates to pg_regress.c |