From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | David Reid <david(at)jetnet(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Adam Val-Jean Haberlach <adam(at)be(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: BeOS and IPC - try 999 |
Date: | 2000-06-14 14:47:15 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0006141146560.5938-100000@thelab.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, David Reid wrote:
> OK, so this isn't try 999 but it feels like it!
>
> One of the arguments that Tom came up with for not liking the patches
> was that
>
> (paraphrasing)
> "the patches make maintainenace harder and don't add anything that could
> help other non-unix platforms"
>
> OK, agreed (up to a point). So, you want easier maintenance? The ONLY
> way that I can think of doing it is to have the platform specific IPC
> stuff in it's own file, hence this patch. The core functions, the ones
> that have no platform specific code in them, still live in ipc.c but all
> the functions that are touched by platform code live in either
> ipc_unix.c or ipc_beos.c. Using this there's no reason why other
> platforms can't do the same. Even native windows functions could be
> written using the split and the code should be easily maintainable by
> the people for each platform.
This sounds reasonable to me ... or am I overlooking something obvious?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-06-14 15:36:20 | Re: Big 7.1 open items |
Previous Message | David Reid | 2000-06-14 13:34:00 | BeOS and IPC - try 999 |