Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation

From: Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter(dot)Brant(at)wicourts(dot)gov
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation
Date: 2006-05-11 01:38:00
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.58.0605102134540.14978@eon.cs
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Sun, 7 May 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> >
> > Leave 'em alone. That code has zero field validation, and should
> > certainly not get shipped until it's survived a beta-test cycle.
>
> Uh, this is a bug fix, and the patch I am asking about is not the Win32
> semaphore reimplementation but a more limited fix.

Sorry for the late reply. Maybe more intensive tests are needed? Since
this bug seems could not lead data corruption, we can wait till next bug
report and let the user test it then decide to apply?

Regards,
Qingqing

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-05-11 01:50:10 Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-05-11 01:34:38 Re: .pgpass file and unix domain sockets

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-05-11 01:50:10 Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-05-11 01:24:11 Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error