| From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Win32 Thread safetyness |
| Date: | 2005-08-29 15:18:56 |
| Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE6C7946@algol.sollentuna.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > Yes, and a flag to ecpg. Added to TODO:
> >
> > Um, it's not clear *when* you need to know this:
> > - application configure time?
> > - application compile time?
> > - application link time?
> > - application run time?
> >
> > Of those possibilities, "add a function" responds to only one, and
> > it's the one I can see least use-case for. I should think that by
> > run-time it's probably too late to do much about it other than fail.
>
> Yea, I am thinking a libpq function would say "libpq not thread-safe'
> and return an error. I would think pg_config output would be
> fine for any link or compile-time check.
Another idea might be to compile the library with a different name when
it's thread safe. And if your system supports it, we build both by
default. (libpq and libpqt or something).
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Wong | 2005-08-29 15:19:58 | Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-08-29 15:13:29 | Re: [HACKERS] Improved \df(+) in psql + backward-compatibility |