--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 16:00:48 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:
> Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> writes:
>> --On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 15:39:54 -0400 Tom Lane
>> <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>=20 wrote:
>>> At this point I'd settle for saying that --enable-thread-safety on
>>> Unixware will generate a library that requires -Kpthread. This is
>>> kinda grungy but it seems that any more-pleasant solution would
>>> require a disproportionate amount of work.
>
>> If I did the work for the dlsym() stuff would you and the rest of core@
>> accept it?
>
> How invasive a change are we talking about? I'd be inclined to reject a
> patch that makes libpq materially less readable ...
>
> regards, tom lane
I was thinking of pq_pthread_* calls, and that function would
set a static flag for calling either the real pthread_* function
or a statically named version in libpgport.a that is a single thread
wrapper.
I know, this sucks, but, I don't see any other way, other than linking
*ALL* libpq-using programs (including initdb and friends) with -K pthread.
--
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
