e(conn));
-exit(1);
-}
}
static void
2018-04-01 2:16 GMT+09:00 Tom Lane :
> CharSyam writes:
>> [ simple_check.patch ]
>
> This is a good catch. However, it looks to me like the reason nobody
> has noticed a problem here is that actually, this error test is useless;
&g
Thanks Amit.
I had a mistake. Thank you again to point it out :)
2018-03-31 19:33 GMT+09:00 Amit Kapila :
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 12:05 PM, CharSyam wrote:
>> Amit, I agree with you.
>>
>> I changed my patch :) to remove old check.
>>
>
> - if (s
Amit, I agree with you.
I changed my patch :) to remove old check.
2018-03-31 15:17 GMT+09:00 Amit Kapila :
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 11:42 AM, CharSyam wrote:
>> Hi, Amit, It's good question. I also thought about it.
>>
>> But, I want to leave original code intenti
condition.
but I think slot->sock == PGINVALID_SOCKET is enough
2018-03-31 14:38 GMT+09:00 Amit Kapila :
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 8:10 PM, CharSyam wrote:
>> Hi, I found some missing check for windows int init_slot function in
>> vacuumdb.c
>>
>> in windows
>> S
Hi, I found some missing check for windows int init_slot function in vacuumdb.c
in windows
SOCKET is unsigned type. so
slot->sock < 0 never can be under 0.
so this patch just check using slot->sock == PGINVALID_SOCKET
Thanks.
simple_check.patch
Description: Binary data
