Re: threads stuff/UnixWare

From: Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>
To: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: threads stuff/UnixWare
Date: 2004-05-12 16:55:55
Message-ID: 116DB15BD517E376C29B4E3C@lerlaptop.lerctr.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:57:10 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>> At the risk of getting my butt kicked again, is there any way we can
>> talk about how to deal with threads on UnixWare and the libpq stuff?
>>
>> Has any other platform come up with a need to look for the real pthread_*
>> calls from libpq?
>>
>> I would REALLY like us to support threaded programs in UnixWare, and
>> would like to NOT antagonize the community, but would like to have a
>> direction I can go to make this happen in 7.5 before we freeze.
>
> Perfect time to start talking about it, at least :)
>
> Do you have a proposed patch to look at for doing this?
No, as I believe the way I want to do it was frowned upon.

I'd LIKE to be able to have PG wrappers for those functions, and
have the first invocation of them look via dlsym() for the real ones, and
if they are NOT there, use fake functions that assume we are NOT threaded.

If they ARE present, indirect to the real functions.

I am looking for direction before expending a lot of effort on it, if it
will ultimately be rejected.

>
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services
> (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy
> ICQ: 7615664

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-05-12 16:56:27 Re: mingw configure failure detection
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-05-12 16:44:22 Re: Subtle pg_dump problem...