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

Re: [HACKERS] xlog.c.patch for cygwin port.

From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, yutaka tanida <yutaka(at)marin(dot)or(dot)jp>, Alexei Zakharov <A(dot)S(dot)Zakharov(at)inp(dot)nsk(dot)su>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] xlog.c.patch for cygwin port.
Date: 2000-03-08 06:07:28
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.21.0003080206330.591-100000@thelab.hub.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 
> > > > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > > > This looks interesting.  We could remove some of our ifwin cruft.
> > > > 
> > > > I have been thinking for quite some time that most of the CYGWIN32
> > > > ifdefs represent very poor programming.  Instead of zillions of
> > > > 
> > > > #ifndef __CYGWIN32__
> > > > 	fd = open(filename, O_RDONLY, 0666);
> > > > #else
> > > > 	fd = open(filename, O_RDONLY | O_BINARY, 0666);
> > > > #endif
> > > > 
> > > > we should have in one include file something like
> > > 
> > > Do we ever assign a function pointer for open() anywhere.  If so, the
> > > define will not work without some kind of wrapper, right?
> > 
> > Okay, I'm lost ... if we "#define OPEN_FLAGS .." and not the open itself,
> > why would we need some kind of wrapper?
> 
> No, the original person was refining open().  Ithink defining the flags
> is much better.

	Ah, okay, knew I was missing something :)  



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Chris BitmeadDate: 2000-03-08 06:24:30
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block
Previous:From: Philip WarnerDate: 2000-03-08 06:05:05
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block

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