On Tue, 2002-05-14 at 04:03, Tom Lane wrote:
Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Although this config file stuff is small potatoes compared to the
Win32 stuff as recently discussed. And for that, please understand
that most of the developers here consider Win32 an inferior server
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What would your opinion be of some hack with macros, like
#if (Win32 or THREADED)
#define GLOBAL_ pg_globals.
#else
#define GLOBAL_
#endif
and then use global variables as
GLOBAL_globvar
At least in my opinion that would increase both
Tom Lane wrote:
Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Although this config file stuff is small potatoes compared to the
Win32 stuff as recently discussed. And for that, please understand
that most of the developers here consider Win32 an inferior server
platform. In fact, Win32 _is_ an
Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I understood it the idea was to put the stuff, the
backends inherit from the postmaster, into a centralized
place, instead of having it spread out all over the place.
What's wrong with that?
The main objection to it in my
Tom Lane wrote:
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What would your opinion be of some hack with macros, like
#if (Win32 or THREADED)
#define GLOBAL_ pg_globals.
#else
#define GLOBAL_
#endif
and then use global variables as
GLOBAL_globvar
At least in my opinion that would
Myron Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Another suggestion might be to create a global hashtable that stores
the size and pointer to global structures for each subsection. Each
subsection can define its own globals structure and register them with
the hashtable.
Hmm ... now *that* is an
Mark (mlw) ... could you generate a listing of those variables you feel
would need to be moved to a 'global structure' and post that to the list?
That would at least give us a starting point, instead of both sides
guessing at what is/would be involved ...
On Tue, 14 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
[trimmed cc list, but left on HACKERS due to the nature of the subject (which
was changed]
On Monday 13 May 2002 10:56 am, mlw wrote:
Iavor Raytchev wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
let's see some code.
I do not feel neither like 'asking for permisson', nor like 'proving'
anything. If
Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Although this config file stuff is small potatoes compared to the
Win32 stuff as recently discussed. And for that, please understand
that most of the developers here consider Win32 an inferior server
platform. In fact, Win32 _is_ an inferior server
On Mon, 13 May 2002, Lamar Owen wrote:
But understand that those who don't need the functionality are likely not not
be thrilled by changes to a currently stable codebase. Although this config
file stuff is small potatoes compared to the Win32 stuff as recently
discussed. And for that,
Actually, even for those that wuldn't need the patch ... as long as the
default behaviour doesn't change, and unless there are no valid
technical arguments around it, there is no reason why a patch shouldn't be
included ...
Unless it's going to interfere with implementing the general case in
11 matches
Mail list logo
