Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 06:40:14PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:46:43AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > > On 12/9/13, 7:47 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > >> Not clear whether the new file should be in src/port or src/common.
> > > > > Agreed. It isn't designed to add missing OS functionality, but it is
> > > > > mostly OS-specific code.
> > > >
> > > > It's not for portability, though, is it?
> > >
> > > Well, neither is sprompt.c, but that has a lot of port-specific code in
> > > it, so I used that as a guide.
> >
> > src/common was created much later than sprompt.c was written. I would
> > have thought that the consideration would have been that sprompt.c
> > should eventually be moved to src/common; not that it would serve as a
> > precedent for anything.
>
> Are we not moving items over to common where appropriate?
I don't think we're moving code from src/port to src/common just for the
heck of it; but ISTM if we're adding new code which belongs to
src/common, and there's a natural file for it in src/port which should
arguably also be in src/common, then it makes sense to put both the new
code and the old file together in src/common.
Note that nothing in src/port should depend on stuff in src/common. As
I see it, src/port is very bare-bones stuff which src/common builds on
top of. It might also make sense, in some cases, to consider low-level
routines in src/port that are used by higher level routines in
src/common.
> Are we worried about bring external applications?
Please rephrase. What are we worried about?
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services