"Hiroshi Saito" <z-sa...@guitar.ocn.ne.jp> writes:
> Yes, I thinks that it is an exact idea. However, this example was not helped.
> fd_set complains....
> Thanks!
> It seems that pg_bench takes the thing same again into consideration.
> Anyway, If it is called example of end-user code, what is the evasion method
> of fd_set?
On reflection I think it's just wrong to expect that the examples will
compile out-of-the-box on every platform. The only way that that can
possibly happen is if they depend on our configuration infrastructure,
which is exactly what I feel they should not depend on. Any client
program that has ambitions of portability is going to have its own
autoconf stuff, so injecting ours into a piece of sample code is just
going to result in headaches. Even including only pg_config.h would
be a serious invasion of application namespace.
Looking at pgbench, or any other one of our client-side programs,
is not relevant to the point here. Those programs *are* supposed
to rely on the PG autoconf environment.
We can certainly add some more standard #includes to the examples
if they're obviously missing some. But that isn't going to get us
to a point where they'll compile everywhere without change.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
