X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C7C6DA540 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:52:33 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 40618-09 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:52:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C2BDA399 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:52:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j9GHqTfw009102; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:52:29 -0400 (EDT) To: Bruce Momjian Cc: Volkan YAZICI , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Will PQregisterThreadLock() be documented? In-reply-to: <200510161715.j9GHFjq22193@candle.pha.pa.us> References: <200510161715.j9GHFjq22193@candle.pha.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:15:45 -0400" Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:52:29 -0400 Message-ID: <9101.1129485149@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200510/47 X-Sequence-Number: 3292 Bruce Momjian writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Really? Do we intend applications to call it? > Uh, well, we never call it ourselves, so if we don't expect other > applications to call it, why is it there? If it's intended for apps to call, how was the patch initially accepted with no documentation? regards, tom lane