From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Reini Urban <rurban(at)x-ray(dot)at> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: cypg.dll, libpq_a, initdb max_connections 60 |
Date: | 2004-10-09 15:18:28 |
Message-ID: | 27806.1097335108@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Reini Urban <rurban(at)x-ray(dot)at> writes:
> With this patch we might want to rename libpq.a to libpq.dll.a in our
> install step later.
Isn't ".dll.a" a contradiction in terms? This doesn't seem
well-thought-out at all to me. Also the end result would have to
be much more invasive than you suggest here, since there are many
more programs besides pg_ctl that use libpq.
> + #ifdef __CYGWIN__
> + static const int conns[] = {60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, 5};
> + #else
> static const int conns[] = {100, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10};
> + #endif
This part is just silly. If your system can't support ten connections
I think you need to fix your system. Also, we are not in the habit of
plastering the source with platform-specific ifdefs just to save a
couple of cycles during initialization. If the probe at 100 caused an
actual failure on cygwin, I'd accept such a patch, but not otherwise.
How legible do you think this code would be if we tried to #ifdef in
platform-specific limits for every port we support?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Reini Urban | 2004-10-09 16:24:50 | Re: cypg.dll, libpq_a, initdb max_connections 60 |
Previous Message | Reini Urban | 2004-10-09 13:41:18 | cypg.dll, libpq_a, initdb max_connections 60 |