Message-ID: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3835-c3460719378@github.com>
From: "vlsi (@vlsi)" <noreply+vlsi@github.com>
To: "pgjdbc/pgjdbc" <noreply+pgjdbc-pgjdbc@github.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 10:11:57 +0000
Subject: Re: [pgjdbc/pgjdbc] issue #3835: Virtual Thread pinned in PostgreSQL JDBC Driver 42.7.8
In-Reply-To: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3835@github.com>
References: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3835@github.com>
List-Id: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc.github.com>
X-GitHub-Author-Login: vlsi
X-GitHub-Comment-Id: 3460719378
X-GitHub-Comment-Type: issue_comment
X-GitHub-Issue: 3835
X-GitHub-Repo: pgjdbc/pgjdbc
X-GitHub-Type: comment
X-GitHub-Url: https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/issues/3835#issuecomment-3460719378
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

@Sanne , I believe it is only for historical reasons like in "it was under synchronized lock previously, so we blindly converted it to the lock so keep the semantics". It might indeed be worth converting the field to a non-locked volatile one.