From: | "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PGconn thread safety |
Date: | 2003-02-10 07:02:24 |
Message-ID: | 3E479BD8.2649.DF7CD46@localhost |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 7 Feb 2003 at 14:40, ahoward wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>
> > On Friday 07 February 2003 12:44 pm, you wrote:
> > > Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> > > That's the theory anyway. I believe it actually is free of unsafe uses
> > > of static variables. However, someone recently pointed out that it uses
> > > some libc routines that probably aren't thread-safe; so there's some
> > > cleanup yet to do before we can claim real thread safety.
> > Well, I ran a mutlithreaded test where around 30 connections were hammered =
> > in=20
> > a mutlihtreaded servers using libpq for 100,000 transactions. I didn't noti=
> > ce=20
> > any data inconsistency.=20
> meaning your connections had no semaphore (or other) type thread protection?
I had. But each pgConn object was used in a separate thread. All connections
were created before any threads. So that issue of non-thread safe function to
fetch local user names did not arise, I guess..
Bye
Shridhar
--
The sight of death frightens them [Earthers]. -- Kras the Klingon, "Friday's
Child", stardate 3497.2
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2003-02-10 07:47:51 | Re: PostgreSQL x Oracle |
Previous Message | Eric B.Ridge | 2003-02-10 06:14:49 | Re: Parsing of VIEW definitions |