Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure this is necessarily the right way to approach the patch in
> the first place.  It might be better to make a port file with a
> popen/pclose implementation (even if it simply acts as a failed open and
> does nothing on close). This gets into maintenance issues as well. The
> patch as is basically requires that anyone who is modifying psql know and
> take care to wrap popen/pclose calls. I'm not sure that it's sufficiently
> maintainable at the moment without DMC users around to keep it honest.

I think Stephan is dead on here ... the patch as given is not
maintainable.  Even if there were enough DMC users around to catch
errors of this sort (a fact not in evidence), it's generally impolite
for platforms to expect everyone else to cope with their limitations.
A platform-specific coding of popen/pclose sounds much better.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to