Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Now, there are two options for this. Either we fix it (I can put
>> together a patch), or we remove it altogether. To me, it seems to be
>> just an implementation detail and some kind of explanation why we're
>> doing it - which would live better in a source code comment than in
>> the docs.
>
> Old code assumes you can use free() to free all of these things, so it
> seems reasonable to give some background about why that is not the best
> method anymore.
Ok. So you say update it to be worded to cover the correct info about
win32? Or should we change it into something that says "previously you
could use free(), but for portability reasons..."etc?
//Magnus
