Unixware Patch (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)

2003-08-30 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Larry Rosenman wrote: Index: src/port/thread.c === RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/port/thread.c,v retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.4 thread.c --- src/port/thread.c 16 Aug 2003 15:35:51

Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)

2003-08-30 Thread Larry Rosenman
--On Saturday, August 30, 2003 00:57:45 -0300 Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Larry Rosenman wrote: Index: src/port/thread.c === RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/port/thread.c,v

Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)

2003-08-30 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Larry Rosenman wrote: --On Saturday, August 30, 2003 00:57:45 -0300 Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Larry Rosenman wrote: Index: src/port/thread.c === RCS file:

Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)

2003-08-30 Thread Larry Rosenman
--On Saturday, August 30, 2003 01:09:54 -0300 Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'K, but why the change to NEEDS_REENTRANT_FUNC_NAMES in the first place? The thing that has me most confused here is that the end result is the same with or without the patch, from what I can tell ... the

Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)

2003-08-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
Larry Rosenman wrote: --On Saturday, August 30, 2003 01:09:54 -0300 Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'K, but why the change to NEEDS_REENTRANT_FUNC_NAMES in the first place? The thing that has me most confused here is that the end result is the same with or without

Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)

2003-08-30 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: Yes, and that is the complex part because _some_ non-*_r functions are thread-safe, and some are not. I have to determine if we have other such platforms before I figure out how to fix it in the cleanest way. Long shot ... is there some way of

Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)

2003-08-30 Thread Larry Rosenman
--On Saturday, August 30, 2003 00:17:41 -0400 Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Larry Rosenman wrote: --On Saturday, August 30, 2003 01:09:54 -0300 Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'K, but why the change to NEEDS_REENTRANT_FUNC_NAMES in the first place? The thing that has

Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)

2003-08-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: Yes, and that is the complex part because _some_ non-*_r functions are thread-safe, and some are not. I have to determine if we have other such platforms before I figure out how to fix it in the cleanest way. Long

Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)

2003-08-30 Thread Bruce Momjian
Larry Rosenman wrote: Yes, and that is the complex part because _some_ non-*_r functions are thread-safe, and some are not. I have to determine if we have other such platforms before I figure out how to fix it in the cleanest way. In most platforms that are like this, I think, they have

Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)

2003-08-30 Thread Larry Rosenman
--On Saturday, August 30, 2003 00:51:01 -0400 Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Larry Rosenman wrote: Yes, and that is the complex part because _some_ non-*_r functions are thread-safe, and some are not. I have to determine if we have other such platforms before I figure out how to