From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: VC2005 build and pthreads |
Date: | 2007-02-05 16:09:06 |
Message-ID: | 218.1170691746@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> writes:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>>> It'd be nice if we could do the same for some Unix platofrms like
>>> Linux. The C library uses threads internally, and there's no actual
>>> downside to enabling thread safety there, except removing a few failure
>>> modes.
>>
>> I was not aware this was true on Linux.
> It uses threads at least for the POSIX AIO calls--I'm not sure what
> else.
I think the real point is that you get the same C library whether you
ask for thread safety or not, and it does internal locking to protect
itself against multi threads anyway. So arguably there's no point in
building a thread-unsafe version of libpq.
But having said that, 99.99% of Linux use is based on pre-built RPMs,
and the RPM packagers all understand how to make this decision, so
it's really not our problem to fix.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-02-05 16:15:21 | Re: VC2005 build and pthreads |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-02-05 16:05:42 | Re: [pgsql-patches] [GENERAL] Corrupt database? 8.1/FreeBSD6.0 |