Amit Kapila writes:
> oops, I just saw that you have already pushed a fix for it. I am not
> sure if we should try to do anything about walrcv_receive's output
> still uses pgsocket instead of int as the usage in itself doesn't have
> any problem.
I see a few places where we're still assigning P
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... Oh, just to make things even more fun, PQsocket() returns int, not
>> pgsocket; see its header comment. Therefore, that test is correctly
>> coded as-is (though it's still useless), and
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... Oh, just to make things even more fun, PQsocket() returns int, not
> pgsocket; see its header comment. Therefore, that test is correctly
> coded as-is (though it's still useless), and the real problem is that
> ParallelSlot.sock ought to be
... Oh, just to make things even more fun, PQsocket() returns int, not
pgsocket; see its header comment. Therefore, that test is correctly
coded as-is (though it's still useless), and the real problem is that
ParallelSlot.sock ought to be declared int not pgsocket. If you look
around at our other
Hi, Tom, Thank you for your review.
so Do you think it is better to remove if statement like below
diff --git src/bin/scripts/vacuumdb.c src/bin/scripts/vacuumdb.c
index 887fa48fbd..243d842d06 100644
--- src/bin/scripts/vacuumdb.c
+++ src/bin/scripts/vacuumdb.c
@@ -947,13 +947,6 @@ init_slot(Paral
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;
we can never get here with a bad connection, because connectDatabase
would have failed. I'm inclined to think w
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 6:08 PM, CharSyam wrote:
> Thanks Amit.
> I had a mistake. Thank you again to point it out :)
>
Thanks, your new patch looks good.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
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 (slot->sock < 0)
> + if (slot->sock == PGINVALID_S
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 (slot->sock < 0)
+ if (slot->sock == PGINVALID_SOCKET || slot->sock < 0)
I still see the same check. I think by mistake you have attached old patch.
--
With Regards
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 intention.
>>
>> Actually I think the
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 intention.
>
> Actually I think there is no case ( slot->sock is not PGINVALID_SOCKET
> and slot->sock < 0)
>
> but if original code want to check (sock
Hi, Amit, It's good question. I also thought about it.
But, I want to leave original code intention.
Actually I think there is no case ( slot->sock is not PGINVALID_SOCKET
and slot->sock < 0)
but if original code want to check (sock < -1)
I think it is better to leave that condition.
but I thi
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
> SOCKET is unsigned type. so
>
> slot->sock < 0 never can be under 0.
>
> so this patch just check using slot->sock == PGINVALID_SOCKET
>
- if (slo
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
