Re: signed short fd

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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