wespvp@syntegra.com wrote: > On 4/4/04 11:43 PM, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > > > OK, new patch applied that causes all threads to wait until the parent > > checks their thread-specific pointers. I ran 1000 tests and all passed. > > Hopefully it will good for you too. > > I'll try to give it a test tonight. Please grab CVS. I added sched_yield() too. > > >> Dumb question... Why would you not always use the _r functions if they > >> exist? > > > > Yes, we do use *_r functions in 7.5 if they exist, but in 7.4.X, I think > > we use the non-R if we can, though we actually just use getaddrinfo() in > > 7.4.X if it exists. Basically, the threading tests are still in flux, > > as you can see, in 7.4.X. It works, but it isn't 100% configure perfect > > yet. > > I'm still not clear on this... The thread_test program checks to see if the > non-r functions are thread safe. If so, it directs you to set xxxx=yes in > the template file - I assume that causes the non-r function to be used. If > they are not thread safe, it directs you to use xxxx=no - which I assume > causes the *_r functions to be used. Why would you not *always* use the _r > functions if they exist, and only check for thread safety if the _r > functions do not exist? > > Or, am I misunderstanding how the xxx=yes is used? In 7.4.X, the thought was that if the native function are already thread-safe, why bother calling the *_r functions, but in 7.5, we decided it was better to use the *_r functions --- again, 7.4.X has threads working, but the configure issues were in flux as we learned how each platform handled threading. -- 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, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
