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

Re: support for POSIX 1003.1-2001 hosts

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Dominic J(dot) Eidson" <sauron(at)the-infinite(dot)org>
Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert(at)twinsun(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: support for POSIX 1003.1-2001 hosts
Date: 2002-03-12 00:04:24
Message-ID: 200203120004.g2C04OG08515@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
I am just guessing what people will think about the patch.  If people
want it is a good idea, I can apply it.

The patch basically takes:

	sort +1 -0 and changes it to 

and makes it:

	sort +1 -0 || sort -k 1,0

or something like that.


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

Dominic J. Eidson wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > Paul Eggert wrote:
> > > > From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
> > > > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:05:17 -0500 (EST)
> > > >
> > > > This is an interesting patch, but have not heard anyone else have this
> > > > problem
> > >
> > > That's not surprising, since I am purposely running a bleeding-edge
> > > system to test PostgreSQL portability.  Nobody is shipping POSIX
> > > 1003.1-2001 systems yet (the standard was only approved in December by
> > > the IEEE, and it will not be an official ISO standard for a few more
> > > weeks yet).  But when they do, you will run into this problem.
> > >
> > >
> > > > and am hesitant to add more cost to fix something that may not be
> > > > broken.  Sorry.
> 
> Apparently it _is_ broken - Paul wouldn't be submitting a patch if it
> wasn't. Duh.
> 
> > > There is no cost to PostgreSQL in normal operation, since that part of
> > > the source isn't affected at all.  All that is affected is some of the
> > > test scripts and documentation.  I see little risk to incorporating
> > > the patch, but of course it's your decision.
> >
> > We are kind of picky about adding complexity when it isn't required.
> 
> s/isn't/isn't yet
>               ^^^
> So you'd prefer to just wait 'till POSIX 1003.1-2001 systems ship?
> 
> <sarcasm>
> Paul, I guess you should set up an at(1) job to resubmit the patch in a
> couple-3 years, or something...
> </sarcasm>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dominic J. Eidson
>                                         "Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - Gimli
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.the-infinite.org/              http://www.the-infinite.org/~dominic/
> 
> 

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2002-03-12 00:05:40
Subject: Re: support for POSIX 1003.1-2001 hosts
Previous:From: Dominic J. EidsonDate: 2002-03-11 23:59:32
Subject: Re: support for POSIX 1003.1-2001 hosts

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