From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: libpq thread safety |
Date: | 2004-01-11 16:34:41 |
Message-ID: | 16662.1073838881@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> writes:
> But what about kerberos: I'm a bit reluctant to add a forth mutex: what
> if kerberos calls gethostbyname or getpwuid internally?
Wouldn't help anyway, if some other part of the app also calls kerberos.
I think we should just state that kerberos isn't thread safe and it
isn't our problem.
For the same reason, the mutex in (eg) pqGethostbyname is an utter waste
of code space. It guarantees nothing. Furthermore, any machine that
claims to have a thread-safe libc will have either gethostbyname_r()
or a thread-safe implementation of gethostbyname(). There is no value
in our second-guessing this.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-11 17:03:35 | Re: Suggestions for analyze patch required... |
Previous Message | Mark Cave-Ayland | 2004-01-11 16:05:05 | Suggestions for analyze patch required... |