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.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net