Re: [HACKERS] HAVE_FSEEKO for WIN32

Bruce Momjian wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Cleaning up the parallel restore patch I came across a question I might have asked before, but one which in any case I worked around: Why do we carefully define fseeko() for WIN32 but then not define HAVE_FSEEKO, which makes doing the former

Re: [HACKERS] HAVE_FSEEKO for WIN32

Magnus Hagander wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Cleaning up the parallel restore patch I came across a question I might have asked before, but one which in any case I worked around: Why do we carefully define fseeko() for WIN32 but then not define HAVE_FSEEKO,

Re: [HACKERS] HAVE_FSEEKO for WIN32

Andrew Dunstan wrote: Magnus Hagander wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Cleaning up the parallel restore patch I came across a question I might have asked before, but one which in any case I worked around: Why do we carefully define fseeko() for WIN32 but then

Re: [HACKERS] HAVE_FSEEKO for WIN32

Andrew Dunstan wrote: Cleaning up the parallel restore patch I came across a question I might have asked before, but one which in any case I worked around: Why do we carefully define fseeko() for WIN32 but then not define HAVE_FSEEKO, which makes doing the former pretty much pointless?

[HACKERS] HAVE_FSEEKO for WIN32

Cleaning up the parallel restore patch I came across a question I might have asked before, but one which in any case I worked around: Why do we carefully define fseeko() for WIN32 but then not define HAVE_FSEEKO, which makes doing the former pretty much pointless? cheers andrew -- Sent

Re: [HACKERS] HAVE_FSEEKO for WIN32

Andrew Dunstan wrote: Cleaning up the parallel restore patch I came across a question I might have asked before, but one which in any case I worked around: Why do we carefully define fseeko() for WIN32 but then not define HAVE_FSEEKO, which makes doing the former pretty much pointless?