Re: thread safety on clients

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: thread safety on clients
Date: 2009-12-14 14:55:15
Message-ID: 20091214145515.GB4603@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> But my recollection of the parallel psql patch discussion is that it was
> rejected because nobody felt comfortable with the API design. Do we
> have any better ideas in that department yet?

It wasn't rejected AFAICT. A finalized API with which there was
(almost?) no dissent was posted by you, after a design/path from Greg
Stark. The problem is that nobody stepped up to implementing that spec.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-12-14 14:58:35 Re: Range types
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-12-14 14:51:54 Re: WAL Info messages