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

--On Wednesday, September 03, 2003 14:00:55 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Larry Rosenman wrote:
>> >> > Woh, I thought we just agreed that getpwuid_r() isn't required for
>> >> > thread-safety on your platform.
>> >> it's CLEANER to use it.
>> >>
>> >> Our API Signature is the _r version, why not use it when it's
>> >> available?
>> >
>> > My new patch will optionally use it if it exists, but we still need to
>> > know if it is required so if we don't find it, we throw an error.
>>
>> On UnixWare, either should be thread-safe, to the best of my knowledge.
>> HOWEVER,
>> UnixWare has the getpwuid_r version, and since our API(from thread.c) is
>> the _r signature,
>> we should just return getpwuid_r(...,....,..., etc).
>
> OK, I have marked Unixware as not requiring *_r functions. I decided
> against optionally using the *_r functions if they exist because it
> requires more tests/defines in configure.in, the standard changed the
> arguments for some *_r functions over time (from drafts), and there is
> no advantage if the libc versions are thread-safe already.
Ok, I guess I can live with this, but our API from the rest of libpq to
thread.c is
the getpwuid_r() api.

I would think it would make more sense to use it if it's available.

LER

--
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