Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] library policy question

From: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] library policy question
Date: 2000-03-07 16:57:50
Message-ID: 38C5350E.A76F705E@wgcr.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> but it's still kinda ugly.  In any case it'd be a lot nicer to be
> able to say "libpq is thread safe" rather than "almost thread safe".
 
> 7.0 would be a good time to do that if we were gonna do it.  Comments?

If time is available to do that, I agree that now is an great time to do
so. As a user of a multithreaded web front end to PostgreSQL
(AOLserver), I personally am affected by the result.  The AOLserver
PostgreSQL driver avoids the PQconnectdb() issue by using
PQsetdbLogin().

HOWEVER, it was a hunt to find that information -- it would have been
nice for the docs to say 'libpq {is|is not} threadsafe' -- even 'libpq
is threadsafe if and only if the following API calls are used:' would be
nice.
In fact, even if libpq is not touched, a documentation note to libpq's
threadsafeness would be nice.

--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-03-07 17:01:29
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] alter_table.sql
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2000-03-07 16:57:45
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] library policy question

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group