Adam Haberlach <adam(at)newsnipple(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 04:09:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Somewhere right around here is where I am going to ask why we are
>> entertaining the idea of a BeOS port in the first place... it's
>> evidently not Unix or even trying hard to be close to Unix.
> You've asked this before.
> How does Windows manage to work?
Objection! Point not in evidence!
Seriously, we do not pretend to run on Windows. It does seem to be
possible to run Postgres atop Cygwin's Unix emulation atop Windows.
However, that's only because of some superhuman efforts from the
Cygwin team, not because Windows is a Postgres-compatible platform.
As far as the original question goes, I suspect that a rename() would
work just as well as the link()/unlink() combo that's in that code now.
I would have no objection to a submitted patch along that line. But the
target audience for Postgres is POSIX-compatible platforms, and I do not
think that the core group of developers should be spending much time on
hacking the code to work on platforms that can't meet the POSIX spec.
If anyone else wants to make that happen, we'll accept patches ... but
don't expect us to supply solutions, OK?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alfred Perlstein||Date: 2000-11-29 04:46:43|
|Subject: Re: Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE|
|Previous:||From: Larry Rosenman||Date: 2000-11-29 04:40:44|
|Subject: Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE|