Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Huh ... I'd forgotten about that ... although it seems to work only for
>> rather small values of "work", since the WIN32 code path isn't paying
>> attention to the "who" argument.
> True, but it works for this case :-)
Shouldn't we at least make it fail with EINVAL if "who" doesn't match
whichever semantics this code is able to implement?
[ not relevant to the immediate patch, I suppose, but it might save some
tears later. ]
regards, tom lane