"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Lee Kindness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Guys, too much thought is being spent on this... > > 1. For the _r functions we "need" we should ALWAYS use them if the > > system we are building on has them - they WILL be thread-safe. > > > 2. If the system is missing a _r function then we implement a wrapper > > to call the normal non-_r version. However we do NOT make this wrapper > > call thread-safe - we assume the non-_r version already is. > > That assumption is exactly what Peter is unhappy about. With the above > approach we will happily build a "thread safe" library on systems that > are in fact not thread safe at all. Peter wants --enable-thread-safety > to fail on non-safe systems.
Yeah, I see that as Peter's main objection too. But it really isn't worth the trouble, on such systems a user's app will be so horribly broken WRT threads anyway. It isn't our job to point out the shortcomings of their system. Really such systems don't exist - if libc doesn't have _r calls and the traditional ones are not thread-safe then do you think it'll have a threading library which can run >1 thread concurrently? On such a system the users troubles will start long before PostgreSQL if they play with threads. L. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly