Re: PGconn thread safety

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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