Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 10:02:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> LGTM, although I don't know enough about Windows to know if the
>> "== SIG_ERR" test in that path is correct.
> It's apparently not [0]. :(
Bleah.
> My guess is that this has something to do with redefining SIG_ERR in
> win32_port.h. We might be able to use push_macro/pop_macro to keep the old
> value around, but at the moment I'm leaning towards just removing the
> assertion in that path.
I wonder why we redefine those values? But I tend to agree that just
removing the test is sufficient for now. Given the lack of failure
checks in the existing code, and the lack of trouble reports
suggesting any problem, it's hard to muster enthusiasm for spending
a lot of effort on this.
regards, tom lane
