On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 06:40:14PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:46:43AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > On 12/9/13, 7:47 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > >> Not clear whether the new file should be in src/port or src/common.
> > > > Agreed. It isn't designed to add missing OS functionality, but it is
> > > > mostly OS-specific code.
> > >
> > > It's not for portability, though, is it?
> >
> > Well, neither is sprompt.c, but that has a lot of port-specific code in
> > it, so I used that as a guide.
>
> src/common was created much later than sprompt.c was written. I would
> have thought that the consideration would have been that sprompt.c
> should eventually be moved to src/common; not that it would serve as a
> precedent for anything.
Are we not moving items over to common where appropriate? Are we
worried about bring external applications?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
