Ühel kenal päeval (esmaspäev, 14. märts 2005, 22:13-0500), kirjutas
Bruce Momjian:
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I really don't intend to do that, and it does seem to happen a lot. I am
the first to admit I lack tact, but often times I view the decisions made
as rather arbitrary and
Mark Woodward wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I really don't intend to do that, and it does seem to happen a lot.
I
am
the first to admit I lack tact, but often times I view the
decisions
made
as rather arbitrary and lacking a larger perspective, but that is a
rant I
Mark Woodward wrote:
I actually met him _briefly_ at Linuxworld in Boston. He just said
hi, then disappeared. :-)
Bruce, I did want to meet you to a greater extent, but you we surrounded
by people and looked quite busy.
Yea, I was just teasing. It was a very busy conference. I
Maybe we make the assumption that all OS will
implement fd as an array index
The POSIX spec requires open() to assign fd's consecutively from zero.
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/open.html
With all due respect, PostgreSQL now runs natively on Win32. Having a
POSIX-only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The POSIX spec requires open() to assign fd's consecutively from zero.
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/open.html
With all due respect, PostgreSQL now runs natively on Win32.
... using the POSIX APIs that Microsoft so kindly provides.
fd.c will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The POSIX spec requires open() to assign fd's consecutively from zero.
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/open.html
With all due respect, PostgreSQL now runs natively on Win32.
... using the POSIX APIs that Microsoft so kindly provides.
fd.c will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is hardly anything that I would feel comfortable with. Lets break
this down into all the areas that are ambiguous:
There isn't anything ambiguous about this, nor is it credible that there
are implementations that don't follow the intent of the spec. Consider
the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is hardly anything that I would feel comfortable with. Lets break
this down into all the areas that are ambiguous:
There isn't anything ambiguous about this, nor is it credible that there
are implementations that don't follow the intent of the spec.
How do you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is hardly anything that I would feel comfortable with. Lets break
this down into all the areas that are ambiguous:
There isn't anything ambiguous about this, nor is it credible that there
are implementations that don't follow
My copy of APUE says on page 49: The file descriptor returned by open
is the lowest numbered unused descriptor. This is used by some
applications to open a new file on standard input, standard output, or
standard error.
Yes, I'll restate my questions:
What is meant by unused? Is it read to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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,
I really don't intend to do that, and it does seem to happen a lot. I am
the first to admit I lack tact, but often times I view the decisions made
as rather arbitrary and lacking a larger perspective, but that is a rant I
don't want to get right now.
Perhaps it's your lack of a real name and
At 2005-03-14 16:25:22 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The file descriptor returned by open is the lowest numbered unused
descriptor. [...]
What is meant by unused?
Perhaps you should actually look at the standard.
The open( ) function shall return a file descriptor for the named
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I really don't intend to do that, and it does seem to happen a lot. I am
the first to admit I lack tact, but often times I view the decisions made
as rather arbitrary and lacking a larger perspective, but that is a rant I
don't want to get right now.
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I really don't intend to do that, and it does seem to happen a lot. I
am
the first to admit I lack tact, but often times I view the decisions
made
as rather arbitrary and lacking a larger perspective, but that is a
rant I
don't want to get right now.
Perhaps it's your lack of a real name and complete anonyminity (hence
invulnerablility) that gets to people...
Is it fixed?
Yeah, hi Mark :)
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Mark Woodward wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I really don't intend to do that, and it does seem to happen a lot. I
am
the first to admit I lack tact, but often times I view the decisions
made
as rather arbitrary and lacking a larger perspective, but that is a
rant I
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:45:51PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Mark Woodward wrote:
Bruce, I did want to meet you to a greater extent, but you we surrounded
by people and looked quite busy.
Yea, I was just teasing. It was a very busy conference. I remember at
night just wanting to turn
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:45:51PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Mark Woodward wrote:
Bruce, I did want to meet you to a greater extent, but you we surrounded
by people and looked quite busy.
Yea, I was just teasing. It was a very busy conference. I remember
We have the following definition in fd.c:
typedef struct vfd
{
signed short fd; /* current FD, or VFD_CLOSED if none */
...
} Vfd;
but seems we use Vfd.fd as an integer, say in fileNameOpenFile() we have:
vfdP-fd = BasicOpenFile(fileName, fileFlags, fileMode);
So is there any special
Qingqing Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So is there any special reason we don't worry that convert an integer to
short will not lose data?
It's not possible for that to happen unless the user has set
max_files_per_process to more than 32K, so I'm not particularly
worried. Do you know of any
22 matches
Mail list logo
