Re: close() vs. closesocket()

We can look at such restructuring later after the port is complete but
at this point I want to get it working, and make as few changes as
possible.

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

mlw wrote:
> In porting to Windows, I would create a new source file called pgsocket,
> or something, and implement *all* the socket cruft there. Where ever you
> mess with a socket, i.e. send, recv, poll, accept, listen,
> get/setsockopt, select, etc. make it a function. Furthermore, try to
> bring some of the logical cruft that goes along with sockets and bring
> it into the module, i.e. don't call select(...) then call recv, call
> SocketSelectRead(...).
>
> Windows' sockets aren't very good. They will be good enough to be
> functional, but eventually, someone will want to rewrite with completion
> ports.
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >Looking at libpq, you can see Win32 requires closesocket() while Unix
> >uses just uses close().
> >
> >I have to add this type of change to the backend for Win32, so I am
> >inclined to make all the socket close calls closesocket() and #define
> >that as close() on Unix? It would remove quite a few Win32 defs from
> >libpq too.
> >
> >Comments?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073