Lee Kindness wrote: > Tom Lane writes: > > Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On the other hand, things like, getpwnam, strtok, etc have non-thread-safe > > > APIs. They can never be made thread-safe. The *_r versions of these functions > > > are standardized and required. If they don't exist then the platform simply > > > does not support threads. > > > > 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. > > No, it's not. Using the _r functions on such systems is BETTER because > the API is clean and the function can be implmented in a reentrant and > thread-safe fashion wuithout the need for thread local storage or > mutex locking.
I don't care about overhead at this point. These functions are rarely called. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
