Lee Kindness wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Lee Kindness wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Nor do I, but there is no requirement or point in using the
> traditional interface over the _r one then the traditional one is
> known to be thread-safe. It only adds additional complexity.
I am working on a patch that will _prefer_ the *_r functions, but only
fail if not found when the OS is marked as requiring them. At this
point, the only OS so marked is Linux and Unixware (though my patch will
change Unixware to not requiring *_r).
-- 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,
Pennsylvania19073