Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 19:53:38 +0200 Peter Eisentraut
> <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > Lee Kindness writes:
> >
> >> Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> > Right. We can't assume because a *_r function is missing that the
> >> > normal function is thread-safe.
> >
> >> That's not our concern - if the OS isn't thread safe we can't do
> >> anything about it, and to worry about it is an enormous waste of
> >> development time.
> >
> > There is a long way between configure not finding a particular *_r
> > function and the entire operating system not being thread-safe. There are
> > many uncertainties along that way, and I believe my point was that the
> > only way we can get a degree of certainty about the result of a particular
> > build is that we keep a database of exactly what is required for
> > thread-safety on each platform.
> Ok, now, is my statement from a SCO Developer good enough to get
> thread-safety enabled
> on UnixWare with only the getpwuid_r() function?
Woh, I thought we just agreed that getpwuid_r() isn't required for
thread-safety on your platform.
-- 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