Re: Thread safety

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On 27 nov 2008, at 13.00, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>> Can someone remind me why we have --enable-thread-safety? As opposed to
>>>> it being default and having --disable-thread-safety.
>>>
>>> I don't have any numbers or a roster to support this, but I suppose that
>>> thread-safety is not supported on some platforms. So either we'd have
>>> to have diverging defaults or annoy those unsupported platforms with a
>>> mandatory switch.
>>
>> We could try switching it for a day and see what happens to the
>> buildfarm ... that would give us an idea of how many platforms are not
>> prepared.
>>
> +1.
>
> It would be very good to have it ok by default if we cab, and that seems
> luke a good way to see if it's reasonable...
>
> /Magnus
>

It would probably be useful to nail down the supported platforms, have a list
somewhere of the oldest ones: oldest solaris, hpux, irix, aix, sco, etc...

I ran into a few --enable-thread-safety problems, Magnus fixed the cygwin build
already. hpux 10.20 and solaris 2.5.1 were both broken. Sounds like there is
no interest in supporting hpux 10.20, not sure about solaris 2.5.1 realeased in
1996. I only discovered this trying to build libpqtypes, which requires libpq,
on our internal build farm.

--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/