Re: [PATCH] Add PQgetThreadLock() to expose the Kerberos/Curl mutex

On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 7:13 PM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I wonder instead of exposing the lock itself, would it be cleaner to add a pair of Lock/Unlock APIs?

The lock is *already* exposed. For better or worse, this is the API
we've chosen. And since the need for the lock will hopefully decrease
over time, I don't think we should put effort into improving it.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 8:40 PM Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com> wrote:
> Well, that's ancient stuff. krb4? 4?!
>
> Anyways, I'm quite curious about any thread safety problems you are
> aware of in Kerberos implementations today.

Ha, I'd wondered how much of the documentation (and locking) around
this was relevant in 2026. Not something I plan to tackle in the near
future, though :D

> As for curl, it wants to be
> initialized much like OpenSSL used to want to be initialized (thankfully
> no more), and that's a problem.

Curl is also in the "thankfully no more" bucket, but we support older
Red Hat installations that don't have the improvement yet.

Thanks,
--Jacob