[HACKERS] Incorrect comment in fe-lobj.c

I found following in fe-lobj.c: /* * lo_lseek *change the current read or write location on a large object * currently, only L_SET is a legal value for whence * */ I don't know where L_SET comes from. Anyway this should be: * whence must be one of SEEK_SET, SEEK_CUR or SEEK_END.

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

Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org 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

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

Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org 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