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 51A7FD1B42F for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:56:35 +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 53904-05 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:56:16 -0400 (AST) Received: from cpc-gw2.cpc.net.au (unknown [210.9.248.93]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81071D1B47D for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:56:05 -0400 (AST) Received: from utiba.com (ser1.cpc.net.au [192.168.0.19]) by Utiba Mail Gateway (2.2.2) with ESMTP id hBG1uG810742; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:56:16 +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 hBG1uE602612; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:56:14 +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 12:56:12 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 Cc: Demetres Pantermalis , pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org References: <200312160128.hBG1Sns20204@candle.pha.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <200312160128.hBG1Sns20204@candle.pha.pa.us> X-contributes-to-entropy: true MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200312161256.12516.philip@utiba.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200312/40 X-Sequence-Number: 4649 On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:28 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I thinks it's a worthy feature, but perhaps the pre-compiler should war= n=20 > > people that they are relying on non-standard behaviour? >=20 > Maybe we could just document its thread-safety as non-standard. Yes, but my concern is that poor suckers who try to port their code to othe= r=20 DBs won't be going and reading the PostgreSQL doco to figure out why their= =20 code goes suddenly goes "thud!" Maybe an additional flag for the pre-compiler to turn the warning off (how= =20 about '--fast-and-loose-thread-behaviour', '-f' for short ?) would stop it= =20 driving regular users mad, while alerting newer ECPG users that they are=20 relying on an extension that might cause portability issues.=20 > It would cause people moving _from_ PostgreSQL, but no one does that, of > course. :-) Not voluntarily, anyway. Off-topic: having suffered the ravages of Sybase's= =20 isql lately, I've been sorely tempted to add a Sybase-compatibility layer t= o=20 psql. I don't know what would be involved (a lot, I imagine) but it's=20 tempting. > that AT clause is annoying people Yes, it's a pain, but multi-threaded apps are more work anyway - I don't th= ink=20 "AT conn_name" is as onerous as pthread_mutex_lock()ing, which they will=20 (hopefully) be doing a fair bit of.=20 Don't get me wrong, the thread-safe extension would be nice, I'd just hate = to=20 see people rely on it without being aware of the portability cost. Philip.