Larry Rosenman wrote: > > > --On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 19:53:38 +0200 Peter Eisentraut > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Lee Kindness writes: > > > >> Bruce Momjian writes: > >> > Right. We can't assume because a *_r function is missing that the > >> > normal function is thread-safe. > > > >> That's not our concern - if the OS isn't thread safe we can't do > >> anything about it, and to worry about it is an enormous waste of > >> development time. > > > > There is a long way between configure not finding a particular *_r > > function and the entire operating system not being thread-safe. There are > > many uncertainties along that way, and I believe my point was that the > > only way we can get a degree of certainty about the result of a particular > > build is that we keep a database of exactly what is required for > > thread-safety on each platform. > Ok, now, is my statement from a SCO Developer good enough to get > thread-safety enabled > on UnixWare with only the getpwuid_r() function?
Woh, I thought we just agreed that getpwuid_r() isn't required for thread-safety on your platform. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
