Re: close() vs. closesocket()

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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()

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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()