Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > Really? You are configuring with --enable-thread-safety? I just
> > updated your template in CVS, and it is attached. However, any old CVS
> > should work fine.
> Nope, initdb is where we still die:
>
OH! I remember now. What we have to do for this platform only is
--On Thursday, May 13, 2004 11:44:59 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Rosenman wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
--On Thursday, May 13, 2004 10:05:22 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically, as things set right now in CVS, Unixware is ready to go
>
Larry Rosenman wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
>
>
> --On Thursday, May 13, 2004 10:05:22 -0400 Bruce Momjian
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > Basically, as things set right now in CVS, Unixware is ready to go
> > because it thread for everything. We don't have per-template thread
--On Thursday, May 13, 2004 10:05:22 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Basically, as things set right now in CVS, Unixware is ready to go
because it thread for everything. We don't have per-template thread
settings anymore because we test all of it in configure.
Was a change made
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >> I agree. the only issue is how to set up our makefiles to only do the
> >> -Kpthread/-pthreads(gcc) flags on the client code, and not do it for
> >> the backend itself.
>
> > I think mixing a pgport that ha
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Larry Rosenman wrote:
>> I agree. the only issue is how to set up our makefiles to only do the
>> -Kpthread/-pthreads(gcc) flags on the client code, and not do it for
>> the backend itself.
> I think mixing a pgport that has thread flags with a backend
Larry Rosenman wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
>
>
> --On Thursday, May 13, 2004 09:18:21 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I did get a note from my SCO contacts that they are looking into how
> >> to make it easier for stuf
--On Thursday, May 13, 2004 09:18:21 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I did get a note from my SCO contacts that they are looking into how
to make it easier for stuff to be threads ready, but I don't expect
that to be ready for 7.5 release.
T
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I did get a note from my SCO contacts that they are looking into how
> to make it easier for stuff to be threads ready, but I don't expect
> that to be ready for 7.5 release.
> The -Kpthread on all libpq using programs is the easiest way FOR NOW.
Hmm.
--On Thursday, May 13, 2004 09:54:02 +0200 Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
How about making a libpq.so (without pthread) and a
> 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.
How about making a libpq.so (without pthread) and a thread safe
libpq_r.so ?
Andreas
---(end of broadcast)---
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 22:26:03 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Rosenman wrote:
Yes, there would still be the overhead, because the functions that
libthread wraps would go through that overhead since libthread does it's
magic at _ini time.
Y'all were concerned with ov
Larry Rosenman wrote:
> Yes, there would still be the overhead, because the functions that
> libthread wraps would go through that overhead since libthread does it's
> magic at _ini time.
>
> Y'all were concerned with overhead in previous discussions.
>
> If you want to link the backend with -K
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 21:55:40 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Rosenman wrote:
> [ Sorry I have been away from email today. ]
>
> Larry, now that I have put the thread testing into configure, I am
> ready to deal with Unixware. In fact I posted to the list asking yo
Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > [ Sorry I have been away from email today. ]
> >
> > Larry, now that I have put the thread testing into configure, I am ready
> > to deal with Unixware. In fact I posted to the list asking you about it
> > but was too lazy to look up your email address.
> >
> > Anyway, I
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 21:08:25 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Please save us all time searching by providing a URL ...
> I can't find my posts on archives.postgresql.org, but can find it in
> MY archives.
Well,
Tom Lane wrote:
> Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Please save us all time searching by providing a URL ...
>
> > I can't find my posts on archives.postgresql.org, but can find it in
> > MY archives.
>
> Well, then we won't be able to find 'em either, so please repost.
>
> > This
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Please save us all time searching by providing a URL ...
> I can't find my posts on archives.postgresql.org, but can find it in
> MY archives.
Well, then we won't be able to find 'em either, so please repost.
> This is heading down the same path I wa
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > k, a change that 'sucks', vs linking against -Kpthread ... I'm for the
> > -Kpthread route myself, which still sounds the 'clean' solution ...
> that was rejected back in Jan-Mar.
>
> BUT, I agree it would work.
>
> I tried to submit the patch, and it
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --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 s
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 17:29:30 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
--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
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 16:22:58 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
And how will you avoid having a link-time
--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
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
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 15:59:19 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >
> >> >> > Ummm, shouldn't that be added to the port specific Makefile?
> >> >> See my reply to Tom. It
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is the whole discussion we had back in January/February about forcing
> -Kpthread for *ALL* libpq using programs, or dynamically determining
> if the image already is linked -Kpthread, or not supporting threads
> at all on UW.
Oh, that business :-(
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 15:39:54 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This is the whole discussion we had back in January/February about
forcing -Kpthread for *ALL* libpq using programs, or dynamically
determining if the image already is link
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >> > Ummm, shouldn't that be added to the port specific Makefile?
> >> See my reply to Tom. It forces ALL libpq using programs to be
> >> linked with -Kpthread, which was deemed unacceptable.
> >
> > deemed unacceptable by whom? Sounds to me alot simp
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 15:59:19 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>> > Ummm, shouldn't that be added to the port specific Makefile?
>> See my reply to Tom. It forces ALL libpq using programs to be
>> linked with -Kpthread, whi
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 15:02:30 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 14:14:30 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 15:39:34 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 15:02:30 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --On Wednesda
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 15:02:30 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 14:14:30 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>> I'd LIKE to be able
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 14:14:30 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >
> >> I'd LIKE to be able to have PG wrappers for those functions, and have
> >> the first invocation of
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 13:18:35 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:58:58 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In what way does the current thread stuff not work for you?
In the initdb compile:
Undefined
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> I'd LIKE to be able to have PG wrappers for those functions, and have
> the first invocation of them look via dlsym() for the real ones, and if
> they are NOT there, use fake functions that assume we are NOT threaded.
Wouldn't it be easier to have a #d
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 14:14:30 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
I'd LIKE to be able to have PG wrappers for those functions, and have
the first invocation of them look via dlsym() for the real ones, and if
they are NOT there,
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:58:58 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> In what way does the current thread stuff not work for you?
> In the initdb compile:
> Undefined first referenced
> symbol i
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At the risk of getting my butt kicked again, is there any way we can
> talk about how to deal with threads on UnixWare and the libpq stuff?
In what way does the current thread stuff not work for you?
regards, tom lane
-
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:58:58 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
At the risk of getting my butt kicked again, is there any way we can
talk about how to deal with threads on UnixWare and the libpq stuff?
In what way does the current threa
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:57:10 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
At the risk of getting my butt kicked again, is there any way we can
talk about how to deal with threads on UnixWare and the libpq stuff?
Has any other platform
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> At the risk of getting my butt kicked again, is there any way we can
> talk about how to deal with threads on UnixWare and the libpq stuff?
>
> Has any other platform come up with a need to look for the real pthread_*
> calls from libpq?
>
> I would REA
42 matches
Mail list logo
