Re: Thread safety

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Thread safety
Date: 2008-11-27 13:14:37
Message-ID: 6E3A838D-5D51-4460-8EB2-9351C7D9C876@hagander.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 27 nov 2008, at 13.00, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
wrote:

> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> Can someone remind me why we have --enable-thread-safety? As
>>> opposed to
>>> it being default and having --disable-thread-safety.
>>
>> I don't have any numbers or a roster to support this, but I suppose
>> that
>> thread-safety is not supported on some platforms. So either we'd
>> have
>> to have diverging defaults or annoy those unsupported platforms
>> with a
>> mandatory switch.
>
> We could try switching it for a day and see what happens to the
> buildfarm ... that would give us an idea of how many platforms are not
> prepared.
>
+1.

It would be very good to have it ok by default if we cab, and that
seems luke a good way to see if it's reasonable...

/Magnus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2008-11-27 13:31:04 Re: Fwd: [PATCHES] Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1
Previous Message Robert Haas 2008-11-27 13:07:51 Re: Fwd: [PATCHES] Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1