Tom Lane wrote:
> "Hiroshi Saito" <z-saito@guitar.ocn.ne.jp> writes:
> > Yes, I thinks that it is an exact idea. However, this example was not helped.
> > fd_set complains....
> > Thanks!
>
> > It seems that pg_bench takes the thing same again into consideration.
> > Anyway, If it is called example of end-user code, what is the evasion method
> > of fd_set?
>
> On reflection I think it's just wrong to expect that the examples will
> compile out-of-the-box on every platform. The only way that that can
> possibly happen is if they depend on our configuration infrastructure,
> which is exactly what I feel they should not depend on. Any client
> program that has ambitions of portability is going to have its own
> autoconf stuff, so injecting ours into a piece of sample code is just
> going to result in headaches. Even including only pg_config.h would
> be a serious invasion of application namespace.
>
> Looking at pgbench, or any other one of our client-side programs,
> is not relevant to the point here. Those programs *are* supposed
> to rely on the PG autoconf environment.
>
> We can certainly add some more standard #includes to the examples
> if they're obviously missing some. But that isn't going to get us
> to a point where they'll compile everywhere without change.
Well, those example programs are pretty clean libpq apps so I don't see
why they should using platform-specific stuff.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
