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 peter_e@gmx.net
