--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 17:29:30 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:that was rejected back in Jan-Mar.
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 16:00:48 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> --On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 15:39:54 -0400 Tom Lane >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>=20 wrote: >>> At this point I'd settle for saying that --enable-thread-safety on >>> Unixware will generate a library that requires -Kpthread. This is >>> kinda grungy but it seems that any more-pleasant solution would >>> require a disproportionate amount of work. > >> If I did the work for the dlsym() stuff would you and the rest of >> core@ accept it? > > How invasive a change are we talking about? I'd be inclined to reject > a patch that makes libpq materially less readable ... > > regards, tom lane I was thinking of pq_pthread_* calls, and that function would set a static flag for calling either the real pthread_* function or a statically named version in libpgport.a that is a single thread wrapper.
I know, this sucks, but, I don't see any other way, other than linking *ALL* libpq-using programs (including initdb and friends) with -K pthread.
k, a change that 'sucks', vs linking against -Kpthread ... I'm for the -Kpthread route myself, which still sounds the 'clean' solution ...
BUT, I agree it would work.
I tried to submit the patch, and it was killed.
LER
---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
-- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
