Re: libpq thread safety

Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Wouldn't help anyway, if some other part of the app also calls kerberos.
>>
> That's why I've proposed to use the system from openssl: The libpq user
> must implement a lock callback, and libpq calls it around the critical
> sections.

... and if the rest of the app doesn't all adopt the same rule, you're
still screwed. Not a big step forward.

I'd also expect that anytime someone gets their callback wrong, we will
get the bug report. I don't think that a system in which people "must"
implement their own locking primitives is desirable.

> Attached is an untested prototype patch. What do you think?

Personally I find diff -u format completely unreadable :-(. Send
"diff -c" if you want useful commentary.

regards, tom lane