Re: Detecting libpq connections improperly shared via fork()

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Detecting libpq connections improperly shared via fork()
Date: 2012-10-04 01:53:34
Message-ID: 506CEC1E.3010101@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 10/03/2012 09:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> A bigger problem with this is that it only fixes the issue for cases in
> which somebody makes new threads of control with fork(). I believe that
> issues involving multiple threads trying to use the same PGconn are at
> least as widespread. I'm not terribly excited about removing
> functionality and adding overhead to protect against just one variant of
> the problem.
>
>

I had the same thought re threads.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2012-10-04 02:31:45 Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2012-10-04 01:44:00 Re: FDW for PostgreSQL