X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.193]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D05A310127 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:10:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (svr1.postgresql.org [64.117.224.193]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 58781-10 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:10:13 -0300 (ADT) Received: from cpc-gw2.cpc.net.au (unknown [210.9.248.93]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9FEC310138 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:10:11 -0300 (ADT) Received: from utiba.com by Utiba Mail Gateway (2.2.2) with ESMTP id h5R2A7832250; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:10:07 +1000 Received: from pc37.cpc.net.au (pc37.cpc.net.au [192.168.0.37]) by Utiba Mail Thingy (0.0.2) with ESMTP id h5R2A4x31813; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:10:04 +1000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Philip Yarra Organization: Utiba To: AgentM , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: ECPG thread success (kind of) on Linux Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:10:03 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200306271210.03464.philip@utiba.com> X-Archive-Number: 200306/1119 X-Sequence-Number: 40426 On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:58 am, AgentM wrote: > According to POSIX 1003.1c-1995, no such mutex-altering function exists. Thanks for the info - useful to know. > lock the mutex- potentially again). Either that or the recursive locks > can be eliminated. Avoiding recursive locks is my preference - the only two I have found ought= to=20 be easy to avoid. > Just for the record, OS X, Solaris 5.8, FreeBSD 4.8, and LinuxThreads > support the UNIX98 version, so perhaps this isn't so important after > all. Add Tru64 (aka OSF1, aka DEC Unix) to that list. Just checked it. Regards, Philip.