Re: pg_threads.h take II

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jelte Fennema <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Bryan Green <dbryan(dot)green(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pg_threads.h take II
Date: 2026-11-04 11:19:54
Message-ID: 4ba4f789-9e5d-44a1-bc72-c7821ac4ee4b@eisentraut.org
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 31.07.26 04:18, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I decided to split the API patch into two parts, to highlight
> something interesting:
>
> v3-0002 pg_threads.h with support for <pthread.h> or <threads.h>
> v3-0003 adds <windows.h> option for native Windows API
>
> If we are ready to make <threads.h> a hard requirement for Visual
> Studio builds, and willing to use the <pthread.h> implementation that
> ships with MinGW, then we don't actually need v3-0003. That means
> that we're left with almost no code, mostly just renaming wrappers and
> comments.
>
> CI passes with or without v3-0003.
>
> I also fixed the commit message for v3-0006 which I'd failed to update
> (I abandoned my thread-exit invention and just went with tss_t in the
> end). No other changes from v2.

What is the status of this patch set?

I note that some of the patches had already been reviewed earlier in the
thread as good for commit, but I don't think that was done. Have the
newer patch set versions invalidated these reviews?

I'm looking at some other patch sets that are fiddling with threads and
the API layers, and I'm wondering if it's worth proceeding with those,
or rather focus on getting this patch set done and then rebase those
other ones on top of this new API.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zsolt Parragi 2026-11-04 11:27:48 Re: Custom oauth validator options
Previous Message Ishjaap Singh 2026-11-04 11:15:44 Re: [PATCH] Fix interval input at minimum signed field values (BUG #19746)