Message-ID: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-943-c328552416@github.com>
From: "tordmjohnson (@tordmjohnson)" <noreply+tordmjohnson@github.com>
To: "pgjdbc/pgjdbc" <noreply+pgjdbc-pgjdbc@github.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:45:48 +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: tordmjohnson
X-GitHub-Comment-Id: 328552416
X-GitHub-Comment-Type: issue_comment
X-GitHub-Edited-At: 2017-09-11T14:46:00Z
X-GitHub-Issue: 943
X-GitHub-Repo: pgjdbc/pgjdbc
X-GitHub-Type: comment
X-GitHub-Url: https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/943#issuecomment-328552416
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

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.