On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 09:27:40PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> It looks like the mutex protects the connections list in connection.c. I do
> not like that from a application developers perspective.
> If I am developing an application and using multiple connections in multiple
> threads, I have to store a connection name for each connection as C string.
> Of course, I also have to protect it across thread so that I can rightly tell
> ecpg what connection I would be talking to next.
> If an application can take care of a C string, it can also take care of a
> connection structure. On top of it, it eliminates the list lookup. The
> potential performance gain could be worth it if there are hundreds of
> connections and a busy website/application server.
> What I wonder is, do we really need to maintain that level of lookup? Can't we
> just say a connection is a 'struct connection *' which should be opaque and
> should not be touched or poked inside, just like PGConn.
I'm not sure I understand you correctly. The SQL standard says you can
call your statement as this:
exec sql at CONNECTION select 1;
Here CONNECTION of course is a string, the name of the connection. So,
yes, we have to maintain that list to make sure we get the right
Or what were you asking?
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes(at)jabber(dot)org
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Michael Meskes||Date: 2004-02-27 07:41:05|
|Subject: Re: CVS HEAD compile warning|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2004-02-27 07:27:21|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Collaboration Tool Proposal|