Any idea where we are on this?
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > At this point, I am just happy we have this WIN32 errno thing working.
>
> My point is that it isn't "working", it's broken.
>
> > My guess is that we should have two errno's. One the normal errno that
> > is the same on Win32 and Unix and a sockerrno that is conditionally
> > defined:
>
> I don't really want to uglify the code by replacing most of the "errno"
> uses with "sockerrno". People know what errno is, they don't know what
> "sockerrno" is, so we'd be reducing the readability of the code in order
> to cater to Windows cultural imperialism (usual M$ philosophy: embrace,
> extend, and make sure Windows-compatible code can't run anywhere else).
>
> Since there are only about three routines in libpq that need access to
> "regular" errno, it seems less invasive to #define errno for the rest
> of them, and do something special in just these places.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026