| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...) |
| Date: | 2003-09-01 21:45:46 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0309012337450.1206-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> This statement is simply false. A platform can build thread-safe
> versions of those "unsafe" APIs if it makes the return values point
> to thread-local storage. Some BSDs do it that way. Accordingly, any
> simplistic "we must have _r to be thread-safe" approach is incorrect.
That's the difference between being thread-safe and being reentrant.
Reentrancy is (usually) a property of the interface (hence *_r functions
with differing interfaces), thread-safety is a feature of the
implementation; both are orthogonal properties. The Unix standards sort
of encourage making one dependent on the other, which might be where this
confusion comes from.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tommi Mäkitalo | 2003-09-01 22:10:20 | Re: TCP/IP with 7.4 beta2 broken? |
| Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2003-09-01 21:43:53 | Re: massive quotes? |