Re: signed short fd

pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote:
> The point is that this *is* silly, but I am at a loss to understand why it
> isn't a no-brainer to change. Why is there a fight over a trivial change
> which will ensure that PostgreSQL aligns to the documented behavior of
> "open()"

(Why characterise this as a "fight", rather than a discussion? Perhaps 
it is because of the same combative, adversarial attitude you seem to 
bring to every discussion you're involved in on -hackers...)

Anyway, I agree, there's no point keeping it a short; I highly doubt 
this would actually be a problem, but we may as well change it to an int.

-Neil