From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [BUG FIX] Compare returned value by socket() against PGINVALID_SOCKET instead of < 0 |
Date: | 2014-04-11 04:33:08 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+VUU9mqLJzW3dy26N-8F9ifgqABCt9cC+=PAg8BcWGkA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:05:49AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> Ah, yes, good point. This is going to require backpatching then.
>
> I also think so.
>
>>> I think it's better to use check like below, just for matter of
>>> consistency with other place
>>> if (sock == INVALID_SOCKET)
>>
>> Agreed. That is how I have coded the patch.
>
> Sorry, I didn't checked the latest patch before that comment.
>
> I verified that your last patch is fine. Regression test also went fine.
I have noticed small thing which I forgot to mention in previous mail.
I think below added extra line is not required.
int
PQsocket(const PGconn *conn)
{
+
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2014-04-11 05:12:40 | Re: Get more from indices. |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-04-11 04:30:03 | Re: [BUG FIX] Compare returned value by socket() against PGINVALID_SOCKET instead of < 0 |