Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> At a glance, this patch looks okay. However, since this issue does not
> represent a regression from 7.1 I'm not exactly in favour of installing it
> now. We want to get a release out, so I think we need to get stricter in
> those matters. And this patch is not exactly trivial.
You're being way too harsh on it. The configure test is exactly the
standard AC_FUNC_MEMCMP test, tweaked to output its result the same way
our other port inclusions do. The memcmp implementation is also well
tested, being lifted from NetBSD. Where's the problem?
Clearly it should be tested, and I presume Tatsuo will do that,
but my vote is to apply it. Why should we drop SunOS off the list
of supported ports?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Michael Owens||Date: 2001-12-19 20:28:14|
|Subject: Re: Connection Pooling, a year later|
|Previous:||From: Peter Harvey||Date: 2001-12-19 19:38:29|
|Subject: Re: long ints use for 4-byte entities in ODBC|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tatsuo Ishii||Date: 2001-12-20 01:45:53|
|Subject: Re: SunOS patch for memcmp() |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2001-12-19 19:01:40|
|Subject: Re: SunOS patch for memcmp()|