Jan Wieck wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > BTW, I would not approve of a response along the lines of "can't you > > #ifdef to the point that there are no code changes in the Unix builds?" > > No you can't, unless you want to end up with an unmaintainable mess > > of #ifdef spaghetti. The thing that makes this hard is the tradeoff > > between making the code readable and maintainable (which requires > > sharing as much code as possible across platforms) vs isolating > > platform-specific considerations. Programming at this level is not > > a science but an art form, and it's very hard to get it right the first > > time --- especially when none of us have access to all the platforms > > that the code must ultimately work on. > > Exactly my point and the reason I am doing the entire fork+exec stuff > over again. Bruce nagged me endlessly to commit the broken parts I had > and fix them later. I never agreed with that philosophy because in my > experience the worst workarounds live forever.
I wouldn't say nagging ... I would say NAGGING. :-) -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match