Message-ID: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-943-c328484291@github.com>
From: "vlsi (@vlsi)" <noreply+vlsi@github.com>
To: "pgjdbc/pgjdbc" <noreply+pgjdbc-pgjdbc@github.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:07:37 +0000
Subject: Re: [pgjdbc/pgjdbc] PR #943: fix: synchronize modification of shared calendar (#921)
In-Reply-To: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-943@github.com>
References: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-943@github.com>
List-Id: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc.github.com>
X-GitHub-Author-Login: vlsi
X-GitHub-Comment-Id: 328484291
X-GitHub-Comment-Type: issue_comment
X-GitHub-Issue: 943
X-GitHub-Repo: pgjdbc/pgjdbc
X-GitHub-Type: comment
X-GitHub-Url: https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/943#issuecomment-328484291
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

>That type of non-synchronized access is likely to encounter other issues as well.

I agree.

>Connection should not be used concurrently for query execution by multiple threads.

@sehrope , the thing is pgjdbc [claimed](https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/head/thread.html) to be fully thread-safe:

> doc: The PostgreSQL™ JDBC driver is thread safe

See the suggested change for documentation: https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/928