| From: | Philip Yarra <philip(at)utiba(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | ohp(at)pyrenet(dot)fr, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...) |
| Date: | 2003-09-10 04:25:07 |
| Message-ID: | 200309101425.07795.philip@utiba.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 02:15 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > It doesn't seem to me that we should take on the job of providing
> > thread-safe implementations of basic libc functions. If a particular
> > OS cannot manage to offer that functionality, then we should mark it
> > not-thread-safe and move on.
This would be a pretty short list unless I count wrong! This excludes all
releases of FreeBSD (and I'm willing to bet other BSDs), Solaris (at least
the old version I have), OSF, Linux, and who knows what else? MacOS X?
> > Persons unhappy with this labeling must
> > take it up with their OS developers, not us.
Surely the development of PostgreSQL has seen lots of platform shortcomings
found and worked-around? Why not this as well?
Are these non-threadsafe functions really going to be so heavily-used that we
can't live with the wrappers? I mean, AFAIK these threading issues are only
in ECPG and libpq - it's not like re-writing the backend code is required.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-10 04:29:09 | Re: TCP/IP with 7.4 beta2 broken? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-10 04:21:09 | Re: TCP/IP with 7.4 beta2 broken? |