Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Even though I can't reproduce the problem myself, I'm quite keen to go > ahead and push the patch I proposed for v12 anyway, and close this > case. Otherwise this problem could just keep coming back until > libldap.so is eventually entirely phased out by all distros. In 2023 > I want to be working on quantum parallelism or something, not LDAP bug > reports. Any objections? Do we have any clear reason to believe this'd actually fix Mike's problem? AFAIK the analogy to the old destructor-conflict issue is just a guess, and we don't really know exactly what is going wrong. It's reasonable to assume that the proposed patch won't cause real issues on any modern platform, but I'm not sure we can assume that for old ones, so the whole thing is making me a bit nervous. Still, it's nice simplification to not have different frontend and backend LDAP libs. As far as the specifics of the patch go, I don't like that you didn't adjust any of the comments near pthread_is_threaded_np() usages. regards, tom lane
