From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | ahoward <ahoward(at)fsl(dot)noaa(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PGconn thread safety |
Date: | 2003-02-07 07:14:18 |
Message-ID: | 24298.1044602058@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 21:19, ahoward wrote:
>> does anyone know if PGconns are safe to use from multiple threads of control?
> http://www.ca.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.3/postgres/libpq-threading.html
> "libpq is thread-safe as of PostgreSQL 7.0, so long as no two threads
> attempt to manipulate the same PGconn object at the same time."
That's the theory anyway. I believe it actually is free of unsafe uses
of static variables. However, someone recently pointed out that it uses
some libc routines that probably aren't thread-safe; so there's some
cleanup yet to do before we can claim real thread safety.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-07 07:19:55 | Re: AllocSetAlloc() error message |
Previous Message | Alastair D'Silva | 2003-02-07 07:04:38 | Re: OT: This list is Razored |