Re: libpq_r

From: Lee Kindness <lkindness(at)csl(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Lee Kindness <lkindness(at)csl(dot)co(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: libpq_r
Date: 2003-07-24 14:51:44
Message-ID: 16159.62080.671712.645790@kelvin.csl.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane writes:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Now I see what you are saying, that _REENTRANT just makes it reentrant,
> > and doesn't have a downside in terms of performance.
> That's at best an unsupported assertion. Why would the platform bother
> with supplying two copies of libc if they didn't think there was a
> performance hit?

Better remove transactions then, yeah? Performace hit! Profile it and
see how minor (or likely non-existent) it is...

L.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lee Kindness 2003-07-24 14:55:03 Re: libpq_r
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-07-24 14:48:06 Re: libpq_r