Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Warnings triggered by recent includefile cleanups

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Warnings triggered by recent includefile cleanups
Date: 2000-07-27 03:13:46
Message-ID: 200007270313.XAA11797@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> >> Does anyone object if I revert this code to the way it was?
> 
> > Considering that evidence shows that limits.h must have been available on
> > all platforms at least since 6.5, in fact at least as long as the current
> > regex engine has existed, values.h could not possibly have been included
> > anywhere ever, so it's probably better to just remove it.
> 
> Hmm, it does look like regex has included <limits.h> unconditionally
> since day 1, doesn't it?  That sure suggests that this patch:
> 
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
>   *
>   *
>   * IDENTIFICATION
> - *       $Header: /home/projects/pgsql/cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/utils/adt/float.c,v 1.47 1999/07/17 20:17:55 momjian Exp $
> + *       $Header: /home/projects/pgsql/cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/utils/adt/float.c,v 1.48 1999/09/21 20:58:25 momjian Exp $
>   *
>   *-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   */
> @@ -55,6 +55,13 @@
>  #include "postgres.h"
>  #ifdef HAVE_LIMITS_H
>  #include <limits.h>
> +#ifndef MAXINT
> +#define MAXINT           INT_MAX
> +#endif
> +#else
> +#ifdef HAVE_VALUES_H
> +#include <values.h>
> +#endif
>  #endif
>  #include "fmgr.h"
>  #include "utils/builtins.h"
> 
> was dead code when it was installed.  The CVS log says
> 	values.h patch from  Alex Howansky
> but I can't find anything from him in the mailing list archives.
> (We seem to have lost the pgsql-patches archives, however, so if it
> was just a patch that went by then there's no remaining doco.)
> 
> Bruce, does this ring a bell at all?  Unless someone can remember
> why this change seemed like a good idea, I think I will take Peter's
> advice...

I have:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-07-27 03:27:09
Subject: Re: btree split logic is fragile in the presence of lar ge index items
Previous:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2000-07-27 02:31:08
Subject: Re: mac.c

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group