Re: PGconn thread safety

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?

-a

>
> Only noticable thing was that postgresql was not returning even simplest=20
> result in less than 200 ms. So in order to achieve a good throughput, I had=
> =20
> to up the number of connections. The max throughput. was 200ms/no. of=20
> connections.
>
> but that is a different issue..
>
> Shridhar
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>

--

====================================
| Ara Howard
| NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory
| Information and Technology Services
| Data Systems Group
| R/FST 325 Broadway
| Boulder, CO 80305-3328
| Email: ahoward(at)fsl(dot)noaa(dot)gov
| Phone: 303-497-7238
| Fax: 303-497-7259
====================================