On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 10:09 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Neil Dugan wrote:
> > I'm not porting any GUI (too many differences). I was just wondering
> > what shell commands might be wanted by users that only use libpq to
> > connect to the server.
>
> I would say everything that the documentation lists under Client
> Applications would be good targets.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/static/reference-client.html
I will have a close look at that list!
>
> > No bash compatible shell, no 'sed' or 'chmod' or many others.
>
> That was the initial impression on Windows as well, but we found mingw
> and msys, which provide all that and made the porting much easier.
> Perhaps something of that kind exists for your system as well? It's
> not a requirement, but it would help.
>
> > This is the changes I think has the most chance of affecting anyone
> > else.
> > --------------------------------------
> > in src/include/nodes/nodes.h
> > #ifdef __AMIGAOS4__
> > typedef struct {
> > NodeTag type;
> > } Node;
> > #else
> > typedef struct Node {
> > NodeTag type;
> > } Node;
> > #endif
> > --------------------------------------
> [etc.]
>
> But why is that necessary? I trust that you can read compiler error
> messages, but the public might like to see them so we can form a
> balanced opinion.
Because the standard header files for the Amiga OS use 'struct List' and
'struct Node' all though them. Which causes gcc to complain that these
have been redefined. Fortunately these aren't typedef as well.
Here is the error message:
In file included from ../include/nodes/pg_list.h:17,
from ../include/libpq/hba.h:18,
from ../include/libpq/libpq-be.h:21,
from ../include/libpq/crypt.h:16,
from ../src/interfaces/libpq/fe-auth.c:61:
../include/nodes/nodes.h:306: error: redefinition of `struct Node'
> > How often does the code for libpq change, making older revision of
> > libpq not work with newer version of the database server?
>
> The most recent libpq that no longer works with the current server was
> released around 1998. I don't think you need to worry about that. We
> keep protocol compatibility for a long time.
Thats good to hear.
