Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Select Git revision
  • benchmark-tools
  • postgres-lambda
  • master default
  • REL9_4_25
  • REL9_5_20
  • REL9_6_16
  • REL_10_11
  • REL_11_6
  • REL_12_1
  • REL_12_0
  • REL_12_RC1
  • REL_12_BETA4
  • REL9_4_24
  • REL9_5_19
  • REL9_6_15
  • REL_10_10
  • REL_11_5
  • REL_12_BETA3
  • REL9_4_23
  • REL9_5_18
  • REL9_6_14
  • REL_10_9
  • REL_11_4
23 results

postgres-lambda-diff

  • Clone with SSH
  • Clone with HTTPS
  • user avatar
    Tom Lane authored
    Spelling access(2)'s second argument as "2" is just horrid.
    POSIX makes no promises as to the numeric values of W_OK and related
    macros.  Even if it accidentally works as intended on every supported
    platform, it's still unreadable and inconsistent with adjacent code.
    
    In passing, don't spell "NULL" as "0" either.  Yes, that's legal C;
    no, it's not project style.
    
    Back-patch, just in case the unportability is real and not theoretical.
    (Most likely, even if a platform had different bit assignments for
    access()'s modes, there'd not be an observable behavior difference
    here; but I'm being paranoid today.)
    16d3dbe2
    History
    Name Last commit Last update