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

Re: close() vs. closesocket()

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: mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: close() vs. closesocket()
Date: 2003-04-25 14:14:10
Message-ID: 200304251414.h3PEEAN06469@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
> > Windows' sockets aren't very good.
> 
> They seem to be good enough that we have not had to worry about it,
> with the exception of the close/closesocket issue and the nonstandard
> error reporting mechanism.  But both of those have been worked around
> for a long time in the libpq sources.  Do we really need to insert a
> compatibility layer just to deal with those two problems?

Right.  The problem with a compatibility layer is that it adds another
level of abstraction.  That is not bad, but it might not make things
clearer either.

-- 
  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


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joachim WielandDate: 2003-04-25 14:50:08
Subject: Re: STABLE functions
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-04-25 14:13:13
Subject: Re: close() vs. closesocket()

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: pgsqlDate: 2003-04-25 15:33:36
Subject: Re: close() vs. closesocket()
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-04-25 14:13:13
Subject: Re: close() vs. closesocket()

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