Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes, thread.c, path.c, and sprompt.c should be in utils, but how do I do
> > that? Utils seems to be a place things are pulled from, rather than a
> > library that goes with every link.
>
> > Is it worth creating another library that
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> If a file is needed by three non-backend directories, /port seems to be
> >> the proper place for it.
>
> > src/port is intended for replacement implementations of standard library
> > functions.
>
> I c
I have moved simple_prompt()/sprompt.c into /port. It was used by psql,
pg_dump, and scripts, and had already gotten out of sync with a recent
Win32 password patch.
If a file is needed by three non-backend directories, /port seems to be
the proper place for it.
--
Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> If a file is needed by three non-backend directories, /port seems to be
>> the proper place for it.
> src/port is intended for replacement implementations of standard library
> functions.
I concur, src/port is *not* the right
Bruce Momjian writes:
> If a file is needed by three non-backend directories, /port seems to be
> the proper place for it.
src/port is intended for replacement implementations of standard library
functions. If we make it an "everything that is used in more than one
place" directory, we should be
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, thread.c, path.c, and sprompt.c should be in utils, but how do I do
> that? Utils seems to be a place things are pulled from, rather than a
> library that goes with every link.
> Is it worth creating another library that acts just like /port but is
