X-Original-To: pgsql-interfaces-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 410F3D1D38F for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:24:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 48975-09 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:23:54 -0400 (AST) Received: from cpc-gw2.cpc.net.au (unknown [210.9.248.93]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20492D1B4CD for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:23:34 -0400 (AST) Received: from utiba.com (ser1.cpc.net.au [192.168.0.19]) by Utiba Mail Gateway (2.2.2) with ESMTP id hBG1NY810639; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:23:34 +1100 Received: from pc37.cpc.net.au (pc37.cpc.net.au [192.168.0.37]) by Utiba Mail Thingy (0.0.2) with ESMTP id hBG1NW602312; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:23:32 +1100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Philip Yarra Organization: Utiba Pty Ltd To: Bruce Momjian Subject: Re: Possible bug in ECPGlib thread-safety (Postgres Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:23:30 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 Cc: Demetres Pantermalis , pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org References: <200312160108.hBG18i511422@candle.pha.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <200312160108.hBG18i511422@candle.pha.pa.us> X-contributes-to-entropy: true MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200312161223.30595.philip@utiba.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200312/37 X-Sequence-Number: 4646 On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:08 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have updated the 7.4.X does and CVS head docs to mention that ecpg SET > CONNECTION is not thread-aware, and I have added this to the ecpg TODO: >=20 > o Make SET CONNECTION thread-aware One thing that concerns me: I doubt this is supported in other database=20 systems... people who relied on this feature in ECPG would likely encounter= =20 threading bugs if they port their code to other DBs. And threading bugs can= =20 be nasty to find. Does anyone know how other DBs handle this issue? I thinks it's a worthy feature, but perhaps the pre-compiler should warn=20 people that they are relying on non-standard behaviour? Philip.