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

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Lee Kindness writes:
>
> > You don't... and you simply shouldn't care. If there is a_r version
> > available then we should use it - even if the plain version is "safe".
>
> The problem with this is that the automatic determination (in configure)
> whether there is a xxx_r() version is, in general, fragile. We cannot
> rely on configure saying that xxx_r() doesn't exist, so the plain xxx()
> should be good enough. Else, we'd be shipping claimed-to-be-thread-safe
> libraries that might trigger bugs that will be hard to track down.
>
> I don't see any other solution than keeping a database of NEED_XXX_R for
> each platform and then requiring these functions to show up before we
> declare a library to be thread-safe. So far we're only dealing with three
> functions, to it should be doable.

Right. We can't assume because a *_r function is missing that the
normal function is thread-safe.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073