pgjdbc/pgjdbc GitHub issues and pull requests (mirror)
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: tordmjohnson (@tordmjohnson) <[email protected]>
To: pgjdbc/pgjdbc <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [pgjdbc/pgjdbc] PR #943: fix: synchronize modification of shared calendar (#921)
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:45:48 +0000
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
OK. I completely understand nobody wants to go down the 'slippery slope' of trying to make ``Connection`` entirely-thread safe. I just thought this was a simple enough change, and consistent with already existing synchronization in place for `TimestampUtils` methods like `toTimestamp(Calendar,String)`, `toDate(Calendar,String)`, `toTime(Calendar,String)`, etc., which _do_ ensure the driver is thread-safe (with respect to ``Calendar``), at least when not using binary transfer.
If you're truly only going to change the documentation, then perhaps the existing synchronization in ``TimestampUtils`` should be removed instead, to ensure identical (mis)behavior regardless of whether using binary transfer or not.
view thread (29+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: github://pgjdbc/pgjdbc
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [pgjdbc/pgjdbc] PR #943: fix: synchronize modification of shared calendar (#921)
In-Reply-To: <<[email protected]>>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox