On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 02:15 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > It doesn't seem to me that we should take on the job of providing > > thread-safe implementations of basic libc functions. If a particular > > OS cannot manage to offer that functionality, then we should mark it > > not-thread-safe and move on.
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? > > Persons unhappy with this labeling must > > take it up with their OS developers, not us. Surely the development of PostgreSQL has seen lots of platform shortcomings found and worked-around? Why not this as well? 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. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
