Re: enable-thread-safety defaults?

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: enable-thread-safety defaults?
Date: 2009-11-21 07:29:05
Message-ID: 9837222c0911202329h2f5d5a74w9e0e796f6176694@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2009/11/20 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
> On fre, 2009-11-20 at 08:39 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> 2009/11/20 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
>> > On fre, 2009-11-20 at 02:41 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> >> Is there any actual reason why we are building without thread safety
>> >> by default on most platforms?
>> >
>> > Consistent defaults on all platforms?
>>
>> So why do we have largefile enabled by default? And zlib? And readline?
>
> Let me be more verbose:  I would assume that we want the configure
> defaults to be the same on all platforms.  We fail by default, for
> example, if zlib and readline are not there, but you can turn them off
> explicitly.  If we turn thread-safety on by default, we will/should fail
> if thread-safety is not supported, requiring the user to turn it off
> explicitly.

Yes, of course. Silently turning it off would be a really really bad idea.

> If enough platforms don't support thread-safety, this could
> become annoying.

Agreed.

> I don't have a good overview over how many platforms would be affected,
> and I could in general support changing the default, but I'm just laying
> down one possible constraint.

Well, the buildfarm would tell us that, no? :)

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Grzegorz Jaskiewicz 2009-11-21 09:20:47 Re: DEFAULT of domain ignored in plpgsql (8.4.1)
Previous Message Emmanuel Cecchet 2009-11-21 03:59:46 Re: Partitioning option for COPY