| From: | Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: libpq thread safety |
| Date: | 2004-01-11 17:04:46 |
| Message-ID: | 4001822E.5000701@colorfullife.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> writes:
>
>
>>But what about kerberos: I'm a bit reluctant to add a forth mutex: what
>>if kerberos calls gethostbyname or getpwuid internally?
>>
>>
>
>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.
Attached is an untested prototype patch. What do you think?
--
Manfred
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| patch-proposal | text/plain | 9.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-11 17:12:31 | Re: libpq thread safety |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-11 17:03:35 | Re: Suggestions for analyze patch required... |