Re: VC2005 build and pthreads

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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