Re: threads stuff/UnixWare

--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 17:29:30 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 16:00:48 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> writes:
>> >> --On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 15:39:54 -0400 Tom Lane
>> >> <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>=20 wrote:
>> >>> At this point I'd settle for saying that --enable-thread-safety on
>> >>> Unixware will generate a library that requires -Kpthread. This is
>> >>> kinda grungy but it seems that any more-pleasant solution would
>> >>> require a disproportionate amount of work.
>> >
>> >> If I did the work for the dlsym() stuff would you and the rest of
>> >> core@ accept it?
>> >
>> > How invasive a change are we talking about? I'd be inclined to reject
>> > a patch that makes libpq materially less readable ...
>> >
>> > regards, tom lane
>> I was thinking of pq_pthread_* calls, and that function would
>> set a static flag for calling either the real pthread_* function
>> or a statically named version in libpgport.a that is a single thread
>> wrapper.
>>
>> I know, this sucks, but, I don't see any other way, other than linking
>> *ALL* libpq-using programs (including initdb and friends) with -K
>> pthread.
>
> k, a change that 'sucks', vs linking against -Kpthread ... I'm for the
> -Kpthread route myself, which still sounds the 'clean' solution ...
that was rejected back in Jan-Mar.

BUT, I agree it would work.

I tried to submit the patch, and it was killed.

LER

>
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services
> (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy
> ICQ: 7615664

--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749