Tom Lane writes: > This statement is simply false. A platform can build thread-safe > versions of those "unsafe" APIs if it makes the return values point > to thread-local storage. Some BSDs do it that way. Accordingly, any > simplistic "we must have _r to be thread-safe" approach is incorrect.
That's the difference between being thread-safe and being reentrant. Reentrancy is (usually) a property of the interface (hence *_r functions with differing interfaces), thread-safety is a feature of the implementation; both are orthogonal properties. The Unix standards sort of encourage making one dependent on the other, which might be where this confusion comes from. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
