pgjdbc/pgjdbc GitHub issues and pull requests (mirror)
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: vlsi (@vlsi) <[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 18:43:14 +0000
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
>The general consensus is that you should NOT share connections across threads, and in my opinion, a connection pool should be more than enough for most cases.
Fully agree.
> Should be thread-safe, but beyond that, it's implementation dependent.
I agree, however it turns out lots of uses depend on `Statement.getWarnings` thread safety. E.g. https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/issues/927
>So the question here should be if the 95% (or more) of the use cases works without synchronization/thread-safety, does it's worth the performance implications to cover the 5% of the cases?
I think added synchronization would not matter much performance-wise. Nor it would matter support-wise: some of the methods have already been synchronized, so it could make sense to make them aligned.
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