Good enough for me. I think we should go for it. Paul, did you have an objection? I'm also not terribly sure if we should build towards 2.0.1 while Ilja is out of town, although I'd like to. Perhaps a bugtracker thread with all of the patches we want in 2.0.1 so that we can test them for a while?
Aaron Mikhail Ramendik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Aaron Stone wrote: > >> > Looking at the code (at least the mysql version), I see a huge >> > optimization opportunity for db_get_result. >> [snip] >> > So: does it need to be thread-safe? >> >> I'd like to maximize the thread safety because 1) we might begin to >> use >> threads in the near-future development code and 2) it's almost always >> easier to read thread safe code anyways. > > Actually I have already implementerd and posted this patch, because a > further reading showed that the code was already *not* thread safe in > this very area. And, it resolves a current problem. > >> If you do things that are easily merged into 2.0.x and provide benefits >> that do not require changes to the external appearance (e.g. new database, >> new configs) then we should vet those patches for stability and >> correctness and get them into the stable branch. > > My mysqldb patch is exactly of this kind. While it might give a minor > complication down the road (but not a major addition to the existing > complications), it solves a problem now, and I think it should be > stable. > > Yours, Mikhail Ramendik > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dbmail-dev mailing list > Dbmail-dev@dbmail.org > http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev > --
