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

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)
Date: 2003-09-10 18:05:16
Message-ID: 87llsw1pur.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Philip Yarra <philip(at)utiba(dot)com> writes:

> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 02:15 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> This would be a pretty short list unless I count wrong! This excludes all
> releases of FreeBSD (and I'm willing to bet other BSDs), Solaris (at least
> the old version I have), OSF, Linux, and who knows what else? MacOS X?

Uhm I stopped reading this thread a while back. Linux has all the reentrant
functions required like strerror_r, getpwnam_r, etc. Why do we think it
wouldn't pass?

> Are these non-threadsafe functions really going to be so heavily-used that we
> can't live with the wrappers? I mean, AFAIK these threading issues are only
> in ECPG and libpq - it's not like re-writing the backend code is required.

It's only libpq and ECPG where thread-safety is at all an issue.

--
greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2003-09-10 18:19:52 Re: Notices for redundant operations
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2003-09-10 17:49:02 Re: massive quotes?