From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: close() vs. closesocket() |
Date: | 2003-04-25 14:14:10 |
Message-ID: | 200304251414.h3PEEAN06469@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
> > Windows' sockets aren't very good.
>
> They seem to be good enough that we have not had to worry about it,
> with the exception of the close/closesocket issue and the nonstandard
> error reporting mechanism. But both of those have been worked around
> for a long time in the libpq sources. Do we really need to insert a
> compatibility layer just to deal with those two problems?
Right. The problem with a compatibility layer is that it adds another
level of abstraction. That is not bad, but it might not make things
clearer either.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joachim Wieland | 2003-04-25 14:50:08 | Re: STABLE functions |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-04-25 14:13:13 | Re: close() vs. closesocket() |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | pgsql | 2003-04-25 15:33:36 | Re: close() vs. closesocket() |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-04-25 14:13:13 | Re: close() vs. closesocket() |