Re: close() vs. closesocket()

We can look at such restructuring later after the port is complete but
at this point I want to get it working, and make as few changes as
possible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

mlw wrote:
> In porting to Windows, I would create a new source file called pgsocket, 
> or something, and implement *all* the socket cruft there. Where ever you 
> mess with a socket, i.e. send, recv,  poll,  accept, listen, 
> get/setsockopt, select, etc. make it a function. Furthermore, try to 
> bring some of the logical cruft that goes along with sockets and bring 
> it into the module, i.e. don't call select(...) then call recv, call 
> SocketSelectRead(...).
> 
> Windows' sockets aren't very good. They will be good enough to be 
> functional, but eventually, someone will want to rewrite with completion 
> ports.
> 
> 
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> >Looking at libpq, you can see Win32 requires closesocket() while Unix
> >uses just uses close().
> >
> >I have to add this type of change to the backend for Win32, so I am
> >inclined to make all the socket close calls closesocket() and #define
> >that as close() on Unix?  It would remove quite a few Win32 defs from
> >libpq too.
> >
> >Comments?
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
> 
> http://archives.postgresql.org
> 

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073