Re: BeOS and IPC - try 999

From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: David Reid <david(at)jetnet(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Adam Val-Jean Haberlach <adam(at)be(dot)com>
Subject: Re: BeOS and IPC - try 999
Date: 2000-06-14 14:47:15
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.21.0006141146560.5938-100000@thelab.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, David Reid wrote:

> OK, so this isn't try 999 but it feels like it!
>
> One of the arguments that Tom came up with for not liking the patches
> was that
>
> (paraphrasing)
> "the patches make maintainenace harder and don't add anything that could
> help other non-unix platforms"
>
> OK, agreed (up to a point). So, you want easier maintenance? The ONLY
> way that I can think of doing it is to have the platform specific IPC
> stuff in it's own file, hence this patch. The core functions, the ones
> that have no platform specific code in them, still live in ipc.c but all
> the functions that are touched by platform code live in either
> ipc_unix.c or ipc_beos.c. Using this there's no reason why other
> platforms can't do the same. Even native windows functions could be
> written using the split and the code should be easily maintainable by
> the people for each platform.

This sounds reasonable to me ... or am I overlooking something obvious?

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-06-14 15:36:20 Re: Big 7.1 open items
Previous Message David Reid 2000-06-14 13:34:00 BeOS and IPC - try 999