--On Monday, March 22, 2004 13:15:15 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:
> Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> writes:
>> --On Monday, March 22, 2004 12:49:00 -0500 Tom Lane
>> <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>=20 wrote:
>>> If you can fix it yourself in a reasonably non-intrusive way, we'll take
>>> the patch ... that's about the extent of the cooperation you can expect.
>
>> would a dlsym-based solution be accepted? I.E. wrap the pthread_* calls
>> in libpq, and if the real ones are present, use them, else return a
>> static=20 variable?
>
> I can't tell from that description if the idea meets the "non intrusive"
> test or not. How many places would you have to touch? How exactly are
> you going to tell "whether the real ones are present"?
I'll gen up a patch this week and present it for review.
Basically the 3 pthread_* calls that were added for thread-safe pipes
would be wrapped, and dlsym returning NULL would mean the real ones are not
present, per the note I got back from Dave Prosser of SCO, as well
as the paper Jonathan Schilling pointed me to, that I posted the URL to
on Friday before my world got rocked.
LER
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
