From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, yutaka tanida <yutaka(at)marin(dot)or(dot)jp>, Alexei Zakharov <A(dot)S(dot)Zakharov(at)inp(dot)nsk(dot)su>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] xlog.c.patch for cygwin port. |
Date: | 2000-03-08 05:42:06 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0003080141310.591-100000@thelab.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > This looks interesting. We could remove some of our ifwin cruft.
> >
> > I have been thinking for quite some time that most of the CYGWIN32
> > ifdefs represent very poor programming. Instead of zillions of
> >
> > #ifndef __CYGWIN32__
> > fd = open(filename, O_RDONLY, 0666);
> > #else
> > fd = open(filename, O_RDONLY | O_BINARY, 0666);
> > #endif
> >
> > we should have in one include file something like
>
> Do we ever assign a function pointer for open() anywhere. If so, the
> define will not work without some kind of wrapper, right?
Okay, I'm lost ... if we "#define OPEN_FLAGS .." and not the open itself,
why would we need some kind of wrapper?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-03-08 05:45:05 | Re: BIT/BIT VARYING names (was Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST) |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-03-08 05:29:33 | Re: [HACKERS] CREATE VIEW fix |