Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 02:15 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > It doesn't seem to me that we should take on the job of providing
> > thread-safe implementations of basic libc functions.  If a particular
> > OS cannot manage to offer that functionality, then we should mark it
> > not-thread-safe and move on.

This would be a pretty short list unless I count wrong! This excludes all
releases of FreeBSD (and I'm willing to bet other BSDs), Solaris (at least
the old version I have), OSF, Linux, and who knows what else? MacOS X?

> > Persons unhappy with this labeling must
> > take it up with their OS developers, not us.

Surely the development of PostgreSQL has seen lots of platform shortcomings
found and worked-around? Why not this as well?

Are these non-threadsafe functions really going to be so heavily-used that we
can't live with the wrappers? I mean, AFAIK these threading issues are only
in ECPG and libpq - it's not like re-writing the backend code is required.