| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: signed short fd |
| Date: | 2005-03-14 23:53:07 |
| Message-ID: | 423623E3.2070803@samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com wrote:
> The point is that this *is* silly, but I am at a loss to understand why it
> isn't a no-brainer to change. Why is there a fight over a trivial change
> which will ensure that PostgreSQL aligns to the documented behavior of
> "open()"
(Why characterise this as a "fight", rather than a discussion? Perhaps
it is because of the same combative, adversarial attitude you seem to
bring to every discussion you're involved in on -hackers...)
Anyway, I agree, there's no point keeping it a short; I highly doubt
this would actually be a problem, but we may as well change it to an int.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Harald Fuchs | 2005-03-15 00:00:46 | Re: invalidating cached plans |
| Previous Message | pgsql | 2005-03-14 21:25:22 | Re: signed short fd |