Re: signed short fd
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: signed short fd |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 14345.1110819435@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: signed short fd (pgsql@mohawksoft.com) |
| Ответы |
Re: signed short fd
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
pgsql@mohawksoft.com 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 standard paradigm for replacing stdout: you close(1) and then open()
the target file. If the open() doesn't pick 1 as the fd, you're screwed.
Every shell in the world would break atop such an implementation.
It may well be the case that saving 4 bytes per VFD is useless
micro-optimization. But the code isn't broken as it stands.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: