From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: GNU/Hurd portability patches
In-reply-to: <68643ea2.050a0220.128f53.3f77@mx.google.com>
References: <6862e8d1.050a0220.194b8d.76fa@mx.google.com>
 <3245994.1751388110@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <68643ea2.050a0220.128f53.3f77@mx.google.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>
	message dated "Tue, 01 Jul 2025 22:01:37 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3269923.1751401476.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2025 16:24:36 -0400
Message-ID: <3269924.1751401476@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3269924.1751401476%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 12:41:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> | * If <limits.h> didn't define IOV_MAX, define our own.  X/Open requires at
> | * least 16.  (GNU Hurd apparently feel that they're not bound by X/Open,
> | * because they don't define this symbol at all.)

> I personally don't care much about those missing limits on the Hurd, but
> Thomas mentioned in
> CA+hUKG+tqFVY7Fi=WBvZ6-UsATjcPNBDtphDm7YLjevm2kxSvw@mail.gmail.com (and
> Samuel Thibault cited the same sentence to me now when I discussed the
> commit with him) that POSIX said "A definition of one of the symbolic
> constants in the following list shall be omitted from <limits.h> on
> specific implementations where the corresponding value is equal to or
> greater than the stated minimum, but is unspecified". So "requires at
> least 16" might be a bit too strong here, AIUI.

Oh, I missed that bit of the spec.  I think "requires at least 16"
is correct anyway, but the parenthetical remark isn't really right.
Not sure if it's worth changing --- the end result is the same in
any case.

			regards, tom lane