Re: [HACKERS] Incorrect comment in fe-lobj.c

2012-08-26 Thread Tom Lane
Tatsuo Ishii writes: >> Agreed. But looking at this brings a thought to mind: our code is >> assuming that SEEK_SET, SEEK_CUR, SEEK_END have identical values on the >> client and server. The lack of complaints over the past fifteen years >> suggests that every Unix-oid platform is in fact using

Re: [HACKERS] Incorrect comment in fe-lobj.c

2012-08-26 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> Tatsuo Ishii writes: >> I found following in fe-lobj.c: > >> * currently, only L_SET is a legal value for whence > >> I don't know where "L_SET" comes from. > > Hmm, seems to be that way in the original commit to our CVS (Postgres95). > I don't find this code at all in Postgres v4r2 though.

Re: [HACKERS] Incorrect comment in fe-lobj.c

2012-08-26 Thread Tom Lane
Tatsuo Ishii writes: > I found following in fe-lobj.c: > * currently, only L_SET is a legal value for whence > I don't know where "L_SET" comes from. Hmm, seems to be that way in the original commit to our CVS (Postgres95). I don't find this code at all in Postgres v4r2 though. > Anyway this