Received: from red.csi.cam.ac.uk (exim@red.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.70])
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA91437;
	Wed, 4 Aug 1999 12:20:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from ewan@cam.ac.uk)
Received: from cmor.chu.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.202.213] helo=cam.ac.uk)
	by red.csi.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.03 #1)
	id 11C3is-0005PL-00; Wed, 04 Aug 1999 17:16:59 +0100
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 17:18:19 +0100 (BST)
From: eem21@cam.ac.uk
Reply-To: eem21@cam.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] Threads 
To: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org, pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
In-Reply-To: <17852.933775680@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-Id: <E11C3is-0005PL-00@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>

On  4 Aug, Tom Lane wrote:

> [ Snip discussion regarding PQconnectdb()s thread-safety ]
> 
> If you want to work on it, be my guest...

I don't have time to think about this today, so I can't comment on how
it should work, but I _am_ currently working in this area - I am
providing non-blocking versions of the connect statements, as discussed
on the interfaces list a couple of weeks ago. In fact, it is pretty
much done, apart from a tidy-up, documentation, and testing. I don't
see any point in two people hammering away at the same code - it will
only make work when we try to merge again - so perhaps I should
implement what ever is decided - I don't mind doing so.  However, if I
didn't get it done this weekend it would have to be mid-to-late
September, since I'm going away.  Would that be a problem for anyone?

I had noticed that the connect statements weren't thread-safe, but
was neither aware that that was a problem for anyone, nor inclined to
audit the whole of libpq for thread-safety, so I left it alone.

Ewan.