| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mikhail Matrosov <mikhail(dot)matrosov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, ewan_higgs(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Configure with thread sanitizer fails the thread test |
| Date: | 2021-07-23 17:42:41 |
| Message-ID: | 933675.1627062161@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> ... that said, I wonder why would we do this in the thread_test program
> rather than in configure itself. Wouldn't it make more sense for the
> configure test to be skipped altogether (marking the result as
> thread-safe) when running under thread sanitizer, if there's a way to
> detect that?
TBH, I wonder why we don't just nuke thread_test.c altogether.
Is it still useful in 2021? Machines that still need
--disable-thread-safety can doubtless be counted without running
out of fingers, and I think their owners can be expected to know
that they need that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-07-23 17:43:00 | Re: Delegating superuser tasks to new security roles (Was: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-07-23 17:36:54 | Re: Configure with thread sanitizer fails the thread test |