Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
Cleaning up the parallel restore patch I came across a question I
might have asked before, but one which in any case I worked around:
Why do we carefully define fs
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Cleaning up the parallel restore patch I came across a question I might
have asked before, but one which in any case I worked around:
Why do we carefully define fseeko() for WIN32 but then not define
HAVE_FSEEKO, whi
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Cleaning up the parallel restore patch I came across a question I might
>> have asked before, but one which in any case I worked around:
>>
>> Why do we carefully define fseeko() for WIN32 but then not define
>> HAVE_FSEEKO, which makes doing the fo
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Cleaning up the parallel restore patch I came across a question I might
> have asked before, but one which in any case I worked around:
>
> Why do we carefully define fseeko() for WIN32 but then not define
> HAVE_FSEEKO, which makes doing the former pretty much pointle
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Cleaning up the parallel restore patch I came across a question I might
> have asked before, but one which in any case I worked around:
>
> Why do we carefully define fseeko() for WIN32 but then not define
> HAVE_FSEEKO, which makes doing the former pretty much pointle
Cleaning up the parallel restore patch I came across a question I might
have asked before, but one which in any case I worked around:
Why do we carefully define fseeko() for WIN32 but then not define
HAVE_FSEEKO, which makes doing the former pretty much pointless?
cheers
andrew
--
Sent vi
