| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Federico Di Gregorio <fog(at)initd(dot)org>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: libpq not reentrant |
| Date: | 2002-01-18 19:49:35 |
| Message-ID: | 9497.1011383375@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
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...)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-18 20:38:24 | Re: libpq not reentrant |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-18 19:34:14 | Re: libpq not reentrant |