| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] 0x1A in control file on Windows |
| Date: | 2008-09-24 13:27:32 |
| Message-ID: | 48DA4044.7030305@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>> The point being that the config files are opened with AllocateFile(),
>> which in turn calls fopen(). It doesn't use open(). The proposal was
>> only to make all *open()* calls do it binary. I was under the impression
>> that on Unix, that's what open() did, so we should behave the same?
>>
>
> That seems just weird. I do not think there's any correlation between
> whether we use open or fopen and whether the file is text or binary.
> Even if it happens to be true right now, depending on it would be
> fragile.
>
>
>
I agree. If you really want something like that you should invent
OpenConfigFile() or some such. But it hardly seems worth it.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2008-09-24 13:35:33 | Re: [HACKERS] 0x1A in control file on Windows |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-24 13:18:13 | Re: [HACKERS] 0x1A in control file on Windows |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2008-09-24 13:29:22 | Re: Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches (for CommitFest:Sep) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-24 13:18:13 | Re: [HACKERS] 0x1A in control file on Windows |