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

Re: support for POSIX 1003.1-2001 hosts

From: Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert(at)twinsun(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: support for POSIX 1003.1-2001 hosts
Date: 2002-03-12 00:05:40
Message-ID: 1015891540.2119.36.camel@jiro (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
On Mon, 2002-03-11 at 17:58, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > There is no cost to PostgreSQL in normal operation, since that part of
> > the source isn't affected at all.  All that is affected is some of the
> > test scripts and documentation.  I see little risk to incorporating
> > the patch, but of course it's your decision.
> We are kind of picky about adding complexity when it isn't required.

I wouldn't describe "standards compliance" as "complexity". I haven't
look at the patch extensively, but are there any areas where the new
behavior is not functionally identical to the old code, just more
standards compliant?



Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2002-03-12 00:14:46
Subject: Re: Domain Support -- another round
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-03-12 00:04:24
Subject: Re: support for POSIX 1003.1-2001 hosts

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group