Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> That is entirely the wrong place to put it. There is a section
> >> specifically about libpq's reentrancy or lack of it; mention the
> >> issue there.
> > Uh, I put it in this section:
> Um ... duh ... I can only plead momentary brain fade. Yes, that
> is the right section.
> But I'd suggest moving it down a para or two, to put it next to the
> para pointing out that PQoidStatus etc are not thread-safe. That
> was the context I was expecting to see.
> Also, the "however" can be left out, and ditto "guarantted to be"
> (which is mispelled anyway...)
OK, have we decided we don't want to ever bother making crypt
thread-safe? Is it a TODO item?
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-01-18 20:44:25|
|Subject: Re: libpq not reentrant |
|Previous:||From: Mario Lorenz||Date: 2002-01-18 20:38:32|
|Subject: Re: libpq not reentrant|