Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lee Kindness writes:
>
> > You don't... and you simply shouldn't care. If there is a_r version
> > available then we should use it - even if the plain version is "safe".
>
> The problem with this is that the automatic determination (in configure)
> whether there is a xxx_r() version is, in general, fragile. We cannot
> rely on configure saying that xxx_r() doesn't exist, so the plain xxx()
> should be good enough. Else, we'd be shipping claimed-to-be-thread-safe
> libraries that might trigger bugs that will be hard to track down.
Um. I don't think that's true. I mean, in theory it's true, but in practice
why would an OS have some *_r but have only non-thread-safe versions of
others?
The only OSes like that would be ones that were in the process of developing
thread-safe libraries and hadn't finished yet. Perhaps early versions of
Solaris or CVS snapshots of BSD? I don't know of any actual releases that
anyone would want to be running today.
Postgres doesn't need to work around problems like that. At worst it should
have a blacklist of OS versions that it knows not to even bother building a
threadsafe libpq for.
--
greg
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
