From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Cleaning up historical portability baggage
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+hUKG+L_3brvh=8e0BW_VfX9h7MtwgN=nFHP5o7X2oZucY9dg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+hUKGJ3LHeP9w5Fgzdr4G8AnEtJ=z=p6hGDEm4qYGEUX5B6fQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+Tgmoazusui5EoU_7Z=AgwC5pTAqDndTa7d-owjvQwG3zoRhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKGLLJUMDgCzOK5K4NE6PpU87Ka7t7RQsZoZAZ_EKfL5L+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+Tgmoaw6VBC9Xzr4vOaC0kc-94jb9nzH8MY38Gqn7=wy=i_3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220712173352.trdeq66asbv6vf2q@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <1662559.1657648462@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKG+MOzmDkr27ceG8+uwgFxbJUUv699V3VP3DCioQigrf7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1249825.1658622186@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKGLryBW4fNYoXzMG9y1e0H-QOTdSiTG46xCr1DNuuPwbeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKGJMcwbzRyfTocfxbPBUhERqKE42d-L22jQ+vpB7an-NjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220804034343.unm4rdynedbigamv@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <3322724.1659586159@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKGJ5ej33AJL19sQph7Z8SFZ6+aUSKxFTS6pvk2Y8J9Tcwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <295419.1659918447@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKGK=N8W2uFPdJr07Rs4dgRtbzKaYvCaPQasX3S8=aTO5PQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <747620.1660002360@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKG+L_3brvh=8e0BW_VfX9h7MtwgN=nFHP5o7X2oZucY9dg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 11 Aug 2022 22:02:29 +1200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <488233.1660229571.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 10:52:51 -0400
Message-ID: <488234.1660229571@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/488234.1660229571%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> The most interesting things to say about these ones are:
>  * The concept of a no-Unix-socket build is removed.  We should be
> able to do that now, right?  Peter E seemed to say approximately that
> in the commit message for 797129e5.  Or is there a thought that a new
> operating system might show up that doesn't have 'em and we'd wish
> we'd kept this stuff well marked out?

I'm kind of down on removing that.  I certainly think it's premature
to do so today, when we haven't even yet shipped a release that
assumes we can always define it on Windows -- I won't be too surprised
if we get pushback on that after 15.0 is out.  But in general, Unix
sockets seem like kind of an obvious thing that might not be there
on some future platform.

Instead of what you did in 0002, I propose putting
"#define HAVE_UNIX_SOCKETS 1" in pg_config_manual.h, and keeping
the #if's that reference it as-is.

All the rest of this seems fine on a cursory readthrough.  Even if
we discover that header foo.h is less universal than we thought,
putting back one or two configure tests won't be hard.

			regards, tom lane