From: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>
To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: close() vs. closesocket()
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:05:08 +0530
Message-ID: <3EA92474.7071.4C7B7D9@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200304241835.h3OIZ2s04294@candle.pha.pa.us>
On 24 Apr 2003 at 14:35, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Looking at libpq, you can see Win32 requires closesocket() while Unix
> uses just uses close().
>
> I have to add this type of change to the backend for Win32, so I am
> inclined to make all the socket close calls closesocket() and #define
> that as close() on Unix? It would remove quite a few Win32 defs from
> libpq too.
Rather than #define, I suggest we put CloseSocket as a new function and
implement it differently.. That way we can keep track in case things start to
differ on number and types of arguments between closesocket and close.
#define tends to add cruft and I don't trust windows API to stability the way
unix does.
Just an opinion..
Bye
Shridhar
--
Why use Windows, since there is a door?(By fachat@galileo.rhein-neckar.de,
Andre Fachat)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in
Subject: Re: close() vs. closesocket()
In-Reply-To: <3EA92474.7071.4C7B7D9@localhost>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox