Re: Big 7.1 open items

From: Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>
To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Big 7.1 open items
Date: 2000-06-21 02:27:45
Message-ID: 39502821.8368D88C@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:
> Some unhappiness was raised about
> depending on symlinks for this function, but I didn't hear one single
> concrete reason not to do it, nor an alternative design.

Are symlinks portable?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-06-21 03:45:13 Re: Big 7.1 open items
Previous Message Philip J. Warner 2000-06-21 01:22:10 RE: Big 7.1 open items

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-06-21 03:45:13 Re: Big 7.1 open items
Previous Message Philip J. Warner 2000-06-21 01:22:10 RE: Big 7.1 open items