Re: libpq_r

--On Friday, July 25, 2003 11:23:05 +0200 Peter Eisentraut 
<peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:

> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
>> I still think it is confusing to create a libpq_r on platforms that have
>> no _r libraries.  I am on BSD/OS and I can find only _r library on my
>> entire system,
>
> The criterion is not whether the platform has _r libraries, it's whether
> special actions are required in order to make a library fit for threaded
> programs, at the time that library is built.  Such special actions may
> include:
>
> 1. need to link in special libc_r (FreeBSD)
> 2. need to use magic flags for compiler and/or linker (FreeBSD, UnixWare)
> 3. need to compile with special preprocessor symbols (UnixWare, AIX)
> 4. need to use different compiler altogether (AIX)
>
> (If you read between the lines of the manufacturers' documentation, all
> these methods end up accomplishing similar things, they are only different
> interfaces for it.)
The -D_REENTRANT causes NO pain, and makes it possible to have ONE library
for UnixWare.

the -K[p]thread issue is for EXECUTABLES to cause the libthread library to 
be invoked
at PROCESS startup.

I feel that libpq should be compiled with -D_REENTRANT, and we have ONE copy
of it on UnixWare.


>
> If any of these cases apply, we need to provide a separate libpq_r, or
> else either threaded land or nonthreaded land will suffer pain, from what
> I read.  (The simplest example is errno being defined in different ways
> and referring to different symbols.)
>
> If none of these cases apply, then a separate libpq_r will be redundant,
> perhaps "confusing" to some, but it can be ignored by the user.

see my above comments.


-- 
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