Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)

Lee Kindness wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>  > Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> 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
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073