Message-ID: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3886-c3611813187@github.com>
From: "vlsi (@vlsi)" <noreply+vlsi@github.com>
To: "pgjdbc/pgjdbc" <noreply+pgjdbc-pgjdbc@github.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2025 11:51:24 +0000
Subject: Re: [pgjdbc/pgjdbc] PR #3886: fix: avoid memory leaks in Java <= 21 caused by Thread.inheritedAccessControlContext
In-Reply-To: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3886@github.com>
References: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3886@github.com>
List-Id: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc.github.com>
X-GitHub-Author-Login: vlsi
X-GitHub-Comment-Id: 3611813187
X-GitHub-Comment-Type: issue_comment
X-GitHub-Issue: 3886
X-GitHub-Repo: pgjdbc/pgjdbc
X-GitHub-Type: comment
X-GitHub-Url: https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/3886#issuecomment-3611813187
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

> What happens if ForkJoinPool.commonPool() is unavailable (custom security manager)?

Frankly, I do not think it is a real scenario.

> No handling for RejectedExecutionException from execute()

Frankly, `commonPool()` should not reject unless it shuts down.
I think we should not add workarounds for RejectedExecutionException.