Damn, I though having seperate Statement objects was supposed to take
care of that.
Peter can you confirm this?
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net> writes:
> > OK here is the test program.
> I don't know Java hardly at all, but it looks like you've got ten
> threads in Java all issuing commands through a *single* connection
> to a single backend. Postgres isn't going to lock those threads
> against each other for you ... it has no idea whatever that the
> sequence of commands it's seeing aren't all from one thread.
> You'd need to have ten separate connections to ten separate backends
> to get the behavior you're expecting. Try putting the Connection
> objects into the Adder objects and firing them up at Adder creation.
> regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-interfaces by date
|Next:||From: Joseph Shraibman||Date: 2000-07-13 21:29:23|
|Subject: How do I use connection pooling?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-07-13 18:35:35|
|Subject: Re: select for update not locking properly. |
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: ernie cline||Date: 2000-07-13 18:53:33|
|Subject: Re: performance question|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-07-13 18:39:16|
|Subject: Re: performance question |