Re: signed short fd - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: signed short fd
Date
Msg-id 14345.1110819435@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: signed short fd  (pgsql@mohawksoft.com)
Responses Re: signed short fd  (pgsql@mohawksoft.com)
List pgsql-hackers
pgsql@mohawksoft.com 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 standard paradigm for replacing stdout: you close(1) and then open()
the target file.  If the open() doesn't pick 1 as the fd, you're screwed.
Every shell in the world would break atop such an implementation.

It may well be the case that saving 4 bytes per VFD is useless
micro-optimization.   But the code isn't broken as it stands.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP
Next
From: Michael Adler
Date:
Subject: Re: invalidating cached plans