X-Original-To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29C8347580B for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:09:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta5.snet.net (mta5.snet.net [204.60.203.77]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E435474E44 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:09:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from pop.snet.net (pop.snet.net [204.60.203.72]) by mta5.snet.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SNET-mx-1.2/D-1.1.1.1/O-1.1.1.1) with ESMTP id h2RI8S5x024304 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:08:28 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [64.252.95.167] X-SBCIS-MTA: [pop.snet.net] Received: from kencast.com (167.95.252.64.snet.net [64.252.95.167]) by pop.snet.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SNET-pop-1.2/D-1.1.1.1/O-1.1.1.1) with ESMTP id h2RI8Quj027306 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:08:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E833E5F.6090107@kencast.com> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:09:35 -0500 From: Wei Weng User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030314 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Subject: Is PGconn* thread safe? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-12.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_10,USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) X-Archive-Number: 200303/166 X-Sequence-Number: 3915 Can I use two threads to use one PGconn* or do I have to assign them each one with a unique PGconn*? I searched in the mailing list archive, but couldn't find anything recent that has mentioned the thread safeness of libpq/PGconn*. Thanks a lot! Wei