On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:03:08AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.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)
> {
> +
Yes, I saw that yesterday and fixed it. I also did a dry run of
backpatching and only 8.4 had conflicts, so I think we are good there.
(This is like the readdir() fix all over again.)
Once this is applied I will work on changing the libpq socket type to
use portable pgsocket, but I am not planning to backpatch that unless we
find a bug.
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
