On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:16 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> BSD/OS supports:
>
> The pthreads library conforms to IEEE Std1003.1c
> (``POSIX'').
>
> How is that different from UNIX98?
Just checked up on this: apparently version "g" of the standard does contain
such manipulation functions...
BSD/OS supports:
The pthreads library conforms to IEEE Std1003.1c
(``POSIX'').
How is that different from UNIX98?
---
Philip Yarra wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:58 am, AgentM wrote:
> > According to POSIX
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:58 am, AgentM wrote:
> According to POSIX 1003.1c-1995, no such mutex-altering function exists.
Thanks for the info - useful to know.
> lock the mutex- potentially again). Either that or the recursive locks
> can be eliminated.
Avoiding recursive locks is my preference - t
According to POSIX 1003.1c-1995, no such mutex-altering function exists.
pthread_mutexattr_get/settype(...) functions are defined by X/Open XSH5
(Unix98). I would suggest writing a wrapper for OSs that don't
implement recursive locks (it's easy enough to make your own
implementation- just chec
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:19 am, Philip Yarra wrote:
> there appears to still be a problem
> occurring at "EXEC SQL DISCONNECT con_name". I'll look into it tonight if I
> can.
I did some more poking around last night, and believe I have found the issue:
RedHat Linux 7.3 (the only distro I have acce
