Dann Corbit wrote:
> > Perhaps by 7.5 we can enable the above logic by default.
> >
> > However, I do think we will have to mention the platforms
> > that aren't thread-safe some day, of course, once we enable
> > thread-safe by default.
>
> Perhaps a portable BSD licensed threading library cou
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:49 am, Tom Lane wrote:
> People
> running on such a platform are certainly not going to care whether libpq
> is thread-safe or not.
Precisely. If your application on that platform can't start multiple threads
of execution, it's a moot point whether the DB interface on that p
Larry Rosenman wrote:
> As soon as a beta tarball shows up, I'll cut changes for UnixWare for
> --enable-threads,
> and also to do -D_REENTRANT anyway on UnixWare.
OK.
> What about Kean's change to allow absolute DT_SONAME's?
>
> Can that get applied, and used for SCO and UnixWare?
Can you ver
We don't know the ramifications of doing that flag in the backend code,
and we don't know the performance problems of doing it in client
libraries.
First get your own platforms enabled for the existing thread flag, and
we can revisit this when most/all our platforms are supported. We want
to avo
Bruce Momjian writes:
> First get your own platforms enabled for the existing thread flag, and
> we can revisit this when most/all our platforms are supported. We want
> to avoid confusion of having things work for some platforms and not
> others with no way to communicate that to the users.
Yes
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dann Corbit wrote:
>> Perhaps a portable BSD licensed threading library could be included for
>> platforms that do not have a safe thread interface.
> That seems pretty heavy.
It seems highly unlikely that you could band-aid threading over a libc
that w
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 4:29 PM
> To: Peter Eisentraut
> Cc: Lee Kindness; Larry Rosenman; PostgreSQL Development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Thread-safe configuration option appears to
>
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > First get your own platforms enabled for the existing thread flag, and
> > we can revisit this when most/all our platforms are supported. We want
> > to avoid confusion of having things work for some platforms and not
> > others with no way to
Larry Rosenman writes:
> What the fr*** harm is it in passing -D_REENTRANT into the libpq build on
> UnixWare
> irregardless of the --with-threads* flag?
Indeed for every other sane system out there. Folk are messing around
with the thread stuff using here-say as knowledge. We want to compile
--On Monday, August 04, 2003 23:01:32 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Rosenman wrote:
As soon as a beta tarball shows up, I'll cut changes for UnixWare for
--enable-threads,
and also to do -D_REENTRANT anyway on UnixWare.
OK.
What about Kean's change to allow absolute DT_S
As soon as a beta tarball shows up, I'll cut changes for UnixWare for
--enable-threads,
and also to do -D_REENTRANT anyway on UnixWare.
What about Kean's change to allow absolute DT_SONAME's?
Can that get applied, and used for SCO and UnixWare?
LER
--On Monday, August 04, 2003 18:16:02 -0400 B
> Let's not go there. I'm not involved in the IP fight, but I am a USER on
> that
> platform, and SCO is thinking SERIOUSLY about shipping PG on the
> Platform
> as part of their extensions offering.
>
> What the fr*** harm is it in passing -D_REENTRANT into the libpq build on
> UnixWa
Would you send over a modified template/unixware and template/sco to at
least allow threading when enabled --- see linux or freebsd for examples
--- that is how we are enabling threading.
Are you saying you want that flag without --enable-thread-safety?
--
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > SCO is thinking SERIOUSLY about shipping PG on the Platform as
> > part of their extensions offering.
>
> Why, how nice of them. I don't intend to lift a finger to help.
I don't know, I can think of ONE
--On Monday, August 04, 2003 14:06:34 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SCO is thinking SERIOUSLY about shipping PG on the Platform as
part of their extensions offering.
Why, how nice of them. I don't intend to lift a finger to help.
G
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SCO is thinking SERIOUSLY about shipping PG on the Platform as
> part of their extensions offering.
Why, how nice of them. I don't intend to lift a finger to help.
regards, tom lane
---(end of b
--On Monday, August 04, 2003 13:19:57 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Rosenman wrote:
--On Monday, August 04, 2003 13:11:45 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Larry Rosenman wrote:
>> >> > We decided to make separate thread/nonthread libraries if the
>> >> >
Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, August 04, 2003 13:11:45 -0400 Bruce Momjian
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >> >> > We decided to make separate thread/nonthread libraries if the
> >> >> > threading requires any special flags --- we haven't done that yet,
> >
--On Monday, August 04, 2003 13:11:45 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Rosenman wrote:
>> > We decided to make separate thread/nonthread libraries if the
>> > threading requires any special flags --- we haven't done that yet,
>> > and only configure controls it.
>> That will
Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >> > We decided to make separate thread/nonthread libraries if the threading
> >> > requires any special flags --- we haven't done that yet, and only
> >> > configure controls it.
> >> That will be a POLA (principle of least astonishment) violation on
> >> UnixWare.
> >
> >
--On Monday, August 04, 2003 12:50:31 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Rosenman wrote:
--On Monday, August 04, 2003 12:30:32 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We decided to make separate thread/nonthread libraries if the threading
> requires any special fl
OK, I fixed a number of problems in configure with threads --- please
give it a try now. Thanks.
---
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > Is it intended that libpq is always c
Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, August 04, 2003 12:30:32 -0400 Bruce Momjian
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > We decided to make separate thread/nonthread libraries if the threading
> > requires any special flags --- we haven't done that yet, and only
> > configure controls it.
>
--On Monday, August 04, 2003 12:30:32 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We decided to make separate thread/nonthread libraries if the threading
requires any special flags --- we haven't done that yet, and only
configure controls it.
That will be a POLA (principle of least astonishm
We decided to make separate thread/nonthread libraries if the threading
requires any special flags --- we haven't done that yet, and only
configure controls it.
---
Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, August 04, 2003
--On Monday, August 04, 2003 17:54:41 +0200 Peter Eisentraut
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Is it intended that libpq is always compiled with the so-called
> "thread-safe" compiler option, regardless of whether I used
> --enable-thread-thing?
It cert
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Is it intended that libpq is always compiled with the so-called
> > "thread-safe" compiler option, regardless of whether I used
> > --enable-thread-thing?
>
> It certainly should not be doing that, but my OS has no thread flags, so
> I am not see
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Is it intended that libpq is always compiled with the so-called
> "thread-safe" compiler option, regardless of whether I used
> --enable-thread-thing?
It certainly should not be doing that, but my OS has no thread flags, so
I am not seeing it here. What exactly do you se
28 matches
Mail list logo
