Ühel kenal päeval (esmaspäev, 14. märts 2005, 22:13-0500), kirjutas
Bruce Momjian:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > I really don't intend to do that, and it does seem to happen a lot. I am
> > > the first to admit I lack tact, but often times I view the decisions made
> > > as rather arbitrar
Mark Woodward wrote:
> >> > I actually met him _briefly_ at Linuxworld in Boston. He just said
> >> > "hi", then disappeared. :-)
> >>
> >> Bruce, I did want to meet you to a greater extent, but you we surrounded
> >> by people and looked quite busy.
> >
> > Yea, I was just teasing. It was a ver
> Mark Woodward wrote:
>> > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> >> > I really don't intend to do that, and it does seem to happen a lot.
>> I
>> >> am
>> >> > the first to admit I lack tact, but often times I view the
>> decisions
>> >> made
>> >> > as rather arbitrary and lacking a larger perspectiv
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:45:51PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Mark Woodward wrote:
>
> > > Bruce, I did want to meet you to a greater extent, but you we surrounded
> > > by people and looked quite busy.
> >
> > Yea, I was just teasing. It was a very busy conference.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:45:51PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Mark Woodward wrote:
> > Bruce, I did want to meet you to a greater extent, but you we surrounded
> > by people and looked quite busy.
>
> Yea, I was just teasing. It was a very busy conference. I remember at
> night just wanting
Mark Woodward wrote:
> > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >> > I really don't intend to do that, and it does seem to happen a lot. I
> >> am
> >> > the first to admit I lack tact, but often times I view the decisions
> >> made
> >> > as rather arbitrary and lacking a larger perspective, but that is
Perhaps it's your lack of a real name and complete anonyminity (hence
invulnerablility) that gets to people...
Is it fixed?
Yeah, hi Mark :)
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> > I really don't intend to do that, and it does seem to happen a lot. I
>> am
>> > the first to admit I lack tact, but often times I view the decisions
>> made
>> > as rather arbitrary and lacking a larger perspective, but that is a
>> rant I
>> > don't want to g
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > I really don't intend to do that, and it does seem to happen a lot. I am
> > the first to admit I lack tact, but often times I view the decisions made
> > as rather arbitrary and lacking a larger perspective, but that is a rant I
> > don't want to get right now.
>
At 2005-03-14 16:25:22 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > "The file descriptor returned by open is the lowest numbered unused
> > descriptor. [...]
>
> What is meant by "unused?"
Perhaps you should actually look at the standard.
"The open( ) function shall return a file descriptor for the n
I really don't intend to do that, and it does seem to happen a lot. I am
the first to admit I lack tact, but often times I view the decisions made
as rather arbitrary and lacking a larger perspective, but that is a rant I
don't want to get right now.
Perhaps it's your lack of a real name and comple
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> The point is that this *is* silly, but I am at a loss to understand why
>> it
>> isn't a no-brainer to change. Why is there a fight over a trivial change
>> which will ensure that PostgreSQL aligns to the documented behavior of
>> "open()"
>
> (Why characterise this as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is that this *is* silly, but I am at a loss to understand why it
isn't a no-brainer to change. Why is there a fight over a trivial change
which will ensure that PostgreSQL aligns to the documented behavior of
"open()"
(Why characterise this as a "fight", rather th
> My copy of APUE says on page 49: "The file descriptor returned by open
> is the lowest numbered unused descriptor. This is used by some
> applications to open a new file on standard input, standard output, or
> standard error."
Yes, I'll restate my questions:
What is meant by "unused?" Is it r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 implementati
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
How
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>> The POSIX spec requires open() to assign fd's consecutively from zero.
>>> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/open.html
>
>> With all due respect, PostgreSQL now runs natively on Win32.
>
> ... using the POSIX APIs that Microsoft so kindly provides.
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> The POSIX spec requires open() to assign fd's consecutively from zero.
>> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/open.html
> With all due respect, PostgreSQL now runs natively on Win32.
... using the POSIX APIs that Microsoft so kindly provides.
fd.c will c
>
>> Maybe we make the assumption that all OS will
>> implement "fd" as an array index
>
> The POSIX spec requires open() to assign fd's consecutively from zero.
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/open.html
With all due respect, PostgreSQL now runs natively on Win32. Having a
POS
"Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So is there any special reason we don't worry that convert an integer to
> short will not lose data?
It's not possible for that to happen unless the user has set
max_files_per_process to more than 32K, so I'm not particularly
worried. Do you know of a
We have the following definition in fd.c:
typedef struct vfd
{
signed short fd; /* current FD, or VFD_CLOSED if none */
...
} Vfd;
but seems we use Vfd.fd as an integer, say in fileNameOpenFile() we have:
vfdP->fd = BasicOpenFile(fileName, fileFlags, fileMode);
So is there any special reas
22 matches
Mail list logo
