| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Katherine Ward <kward6(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Small changes to facilitate Win32 port |
| Date: | 2002-05-31 17:22:32 |
| Message-ID: | 19116.1022865752@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:
> Question to all: Any objection to postfix? If so, why?
Well, I suggested DTF_FOO by analogy to the DTK_FOO name set that appears
elsewhere in that same header. If you want to rename those to FOO_DTK
in parallel, I have no objection.
> IGNORE_TOK - How about "IGNORE_DTF" or "IGNORE_D"? Let's make it a bit
> specific to date/time stuff.
Agreed. That thought was what motivated me to gripe in the first place.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Snyder | 2002-05-31 21:44:54 | Can't import large objects in most recent cvs (20020531 -- approx 1pm PDT) |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-05-31 17:21:05 | Re: Small changes to facilitate Win32 port |