Re: [HACKERS] library policy question
От | Lamar Owen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] library policy question |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 38C5350E.A76F705E@wgcr.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | library policy question (Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > but it's still kinda ugly. In any case it'd be a lot nicer to be > able to say "libpq is thread safe" rather than "almost thread safe". > 7.0 would be a good time to do that if we were gonna do it. Comments? If time is available to do that, I agree that now is an great time to do so. As a user of a multithreaded web front end to PostgreSQL (AOLserver), I personally am affected by the result. The AOLserver PostgreSQL driver avoids the PQconnectdb() issue by using PQsetdbLogin(). HOWEVER, it was a hunt to find that information -- it would have been nice for the docs to say 'libpq {is|is not} threadsafe' -- even 'libpq is threadsafe if and only if the following API calls are used:' would be nice. In fact, even if libpq is not touched, a documentation note to libpq's threadsafeness would be nice. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: