Re: Add support for

{retry of message sent Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:04:16 +0100 (BST)]

Tom Lane writes:> Pete Forman wrote:> > The basic problem is that <netinet/tcp.h> is a BSD header.  The> > correct
headerfor TCP internals such as TCP_NODELAY on a UNIX> > system is <xti.h>.  By UNIX I mean UNIX95 (aka XPG4v2 or
SUSv1)>> or later.  The 2 files which conditionally include> > <netinet/tcp.h> need also to conditionally include
<xti.h>.

I've done bit more research.  <xti.h> was the correct place to find
TCP_NODELAY in UNIX98/SUSv2.  However in the Austin Group draft of the
next version of POSIX and UNIX0x/SUSv3, XTI has been dropped and
<netinet/tcp.h>  officially included.
> I have never heard of <xti.h> before and am rather dubious that it> should be considered more standard than <tcp.h>.
However,if we> are going to include it then it evidently must be *mutually> exclusive* with including <tcp.h>.  The $64
questionis, which one> ought to be included when both are available?  I'd tend to go for> <tcp.h> on the grounds of
"don'tfix what wasn't broken".> > Actually, given your description of the problem, I'm half inclined> to revert the
wholepatch and instead make configure's test for> availability of <netinet/tcp.h> first include <netinet/in.h>, so>
thatthat configure test will succeed on IRIX etc.  Do you know any> platforms where <tcp.h> doesn't exist at all?
 

I agree with this.  Back out the patch and update configure.in.  I
might have done that myself but I do not have enough experience with
autoconf.

The only platform I know of without <netinet/tcp.h> is Cygwin B20.1.
There is a workaround in place for that.  The current Cygwin 1.1 does
have the header.

-- 
Pete Forman                 -./\.- Disclaimer: This post is originated
Western Geophysical           -./\.-  by myself and does not represent
pete.forman@westgeo.com         -./\.-  the opinion of Baker Hughes or
http://www.crosswinds.net/~petef  -./\.-  its divisions.