Re: [INTERFACES] libpq + multiple connections ... - Mailing list pgsql-interfaces
From | eem21@cam.ac.uk |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [INTERFACES] libpq + multiple connections ... |
Date | |
Msg-id | E11sYAg-0002xd-00@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [INTERFACES] libpq + multiple connections ... (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>) |
Responses |
Re: [INTERFACES] libpq + multiple connections ...
Re: [INTERFACES] libpq + multiple connections ... Re: [INTERFACES] libpq + multiple connections ... |
List | pgsql-interfaces |
On 29 Nov, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > Is this something that could *safely* be back-patched to a v6.5.4 release? Well, it's not _supposed_ to have changed the behaviour for existing functions. However, there's been quite a lot of chopping and changing, and I might have lost something somewhere. That said, it would be of great help to me if it made it into a 6.5.x release, and I would thus be willing to test it. I can only test ix86/Linux, unfortunately. When would it be released, if that were the case? BTW, how do I find out about the SGML tags we are using (I've never written any SGML before, only HTML). Ewan. > > On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, E.E. Mellor wrote: > >> --On 29 November 1999, 02:45 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> > The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> forwards: >> >> Hmm, sorta, I'm a bit troubled, I was trying to add an async connection >> >> function to libpq and I stumbled across some problems. >> > >> > Someone else was already working on that --- check the archives from >> > a few months back. >> >> 'twas me. In fact, it's been ready for ages, but I've had so much on that >> I've not had time to write the docs. I'll do them today for you. >> >> >> It seems that libpq makes use of some static variables, meaning i'm not >> >> sure if it's safe to use libpq for multiple database connections. >> >> What i'm refering to is: >> >> postgresql-6.5.3/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c >> >> line 79 has a structure that seems to be shared amongst the entire >> >> library, am I likely to stumble upon more stuff that makes it somewhat >> >> dangerous to have more than one active database connection in my program? >> > >> > The PQconnectdb() function uses that static array, meaning that you can't >> > safely run two PQconnectdb() calls in parallel. But you can open two >> > connections in sequence and then use them in parallel; and you can do >> > the opens in parallel if you use one of the older, less-friendly >> > connection-opening calls. There aren't any other non-constant statics >> > in libpq AFAIR. >> >> This is correct. Someone else was looking at thread-safety across the >> whole of libpq, but as far as I'm aware, it's not _guaranteed_ to be >> thread-safe anywhere. My changes allow one to use libpq in a single >> thread, but with multiple connections and without blocking the thread at >> all. >> >> > The static array sucks, I agree, but I don't see any way to get rid of >> > it without changing libpq's API for PQconnectdb() and PQconndefaults(). >> > Do we want to consider doing that (and breaking some apps) for 7.0? >> >> I think it should be possible to arrange it so that these functions still >> exist (but are deprecated and marked as non-thread-safe). I'll leave that >> for others to decide though. >> >> Ewan Mellor. >> > > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy > Systems Administrator @ hub.org > primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org > ************
pgsql-interfaces by date: