| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql-server/ /configure /configure.in rc/incl ... |
| Date: | 2004-05-01 01:04:54 |
| Message-ID: | 8749.1083373494@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> It goes with the Win32 approach of doing as little as possible to the
> Unix port.
That's *not* the approach I want to take. What I want is a Windows port
that adds as little #ifdef cruft to the system as possible --- that is,
no duplicate code paths that are used for only some platforms. A port
that uses an entire timezone library that's not used elsewhere doesn't
fit that criterion.
Besides which, as I tried to explain already, a large part of the reason
for wanting to solve the Windows datetime problem in this particular way
was the knowledge that we could solve a lot of existing problems on
various Unixen by adopting the same code cross-platform.
What you're wanting to do seems a lot like what would happen if I were
to write the fsync/sync-in-bgwriter code that I plan to do next week,
and then commit it all as #ifdef WIN32 in parallel with the existing way
of doing things. It would be an ugly mess, and you'd quite rightly tell
me off for it ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-05-01 01:18:16 | Re: pgsql-server/ /configure /configure.in rc/incl ... |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-04-30 20:47:33 | pgsql-server/src/include c.h |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2004-05-01 01:16:30 | Re: Plan for feature freeze? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-05-01 00:56:54 | Re: pg ANY/SOME ambiguity wrt sql standard? |