From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com |
Cc: | "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: signed short fd |
Date: | 2005-03-14 16:57:15 |
Message-ID: | 14345.1110819435@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com writes:
> That is hardly anything that I would feel comfortable with. Lets break
> this down into all the areas that are ambiguous:
There isn't anything ambiguous about this, nor is it credible that there
are implementations that don't follow the intent of the spec. Consider
the standard paradigm for replacing stdout: you close(1) and then open()
the target file. If the open() doesn't pick 1 as the fd, you're screwed.
Every shell in the world would break atop such an implementation.
It may well be the case that saving 4 bytes per VFD is useless
micro-optimization. But the code isn't broken as it stands.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Adler | 2005-03-14 17:01:43 | Re: invalidating cached plans |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-03-14 16:51:18 | Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP |