Re: [PATCHES] postmaster.pid

[Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>]

Should we (if only for the sake of completeness) make the converse 
one-byte change in port/win32/signal.c?

It says:

void
pg_queue_signal(int signum)
{
   if (signum >= PG_SIGNAL_COUNT || signum < 0)
       return;
...

ISTM we should not ever queue any event for signal 0.

cheers

andrew


Dave Page wrote:

>  
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net] 
> > Sent: 25 August 2004 14:59
> > To: Tom Lane
> > Cc: Dave Page; pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > Subject: RE: [pgsql-hackers-win32] postmaster.pid 
> >
> > Ok, if you say so :-) I had the general impression we wanted 
> > that. But then let's go with the 
> > send-signal-0-down-the-pipe-and-ignore-it-in-the-backend. :-)
> >    
>
> Here's the massive 1 byte change required to do just that :-)
>
> Regards, Dave.
>
>
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/port/kill.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.2
> diff -u -r1.2 kill.c
> --- kill.c	24 Jun 2004 18:53:48 -0000	1.2
> +++ kill.c	26 Aug 2004 14:07:49 -0000
> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
> 	BYTE		sigRet = 0;
> 	DWORD		bytes;
>
> -	if (sig >= PG_SIGNAL_COUNT || sig <= 0)
> +	if (sig >= PG_SIGNAL_COUNT || sig < 0)
> 	{
> 		errno = EINVAL;
> 		return -1;
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>    (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>
>