Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)

--On Monday, September 01, 2003 12:35:43 -0400 Bruce Momjian 
<pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:

>
>> Um. I don't think that's true. I mean, in theory it's true, but in
>> practice why would an OS have some *_r but have only non-thread-safe
>> versions of others?
>
> Oh, interesting.  So you are saying that if the OS supports threads,
> then we use the *_r if they have them, and assume the non *_r functions
> are already thread-safe if they don't.  Interesting.
>
> That seems to be what we have on Unixware, and on BSD/OS I have some *_r
> functions but not others, but they are all threadsafe, so your plan
> works there too.
UnixWare's Kernel is threaded, and I assume anything in libc is threadsafe 
unless
told otherwise.

[snip]
> We could go down that road.  The only other OS that needs *_r functions
> is Linux, and it uses all *_r functions.  How do we configure to throw
> an error in that OS if we don't fined all of them?  Maybe we need a
> three-valued variable instead of boolean NEED_REENTRANT_FUNC_NAMES.  We
> could call it just REENTRANT_FUNC_NAMES and it could have values
> 'require', 'prefer', 'disable'.  This mimicks libpq's new PGSSLMODE
> values.
>
> That sounds like a clear plan.
I have no preference.  I would just like to see a thread-safe libpq.




-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749