Re: Unportability of setvbuf()

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It might also be reasonable to create a wrapper macro along the line of
>> "PG_STD_IO_BUFFERING()" that would encapsulate the whole sequence
>> setvbuf(stdout, NULL, _IOLBF, 0);
>> setvbuf(stderr, NULL, _IONBF, 0);
>> Or maybe we should have separate macros for those two calls. Or maybe
>> this is just a useless layer of abstraction and PG_IOLBF is enough
>> to make the calls portable.
>>
>> Thoughts?

> I don't really know all that much about this stuff, but see commits
> 6eda3e9c27781dec369542a9b20cba7c3d832a5e and its parent about
> isolationtester.

Yeah, making them both unbuffered is another scenario that has its
use-cases, so maybe it's inappropriate to create a macro that presumes
to define the One True Way.

For the moment I'll just arrange for initdb to share the logic with
syslogger.

regards, tom lane