Joe Orton wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 09:47:24PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote: >> On 09/10/2007 08:40 AM, Plüm wrote: >>> That was the goal of my diagnostic patch: Finding out if we have a pool >>> issue. Looks like we have. I guess the right fix is as you say >>> to use the parent pool (process scope). >> Not 100% sure regarding the correct pool, but would that be the correct fix > > That's not really thread-safe, and it ought to be, though we might get > away with it since it's called during startup. But rather than guessing > pools, actually caching the stuff once at startup is probably cleanest,
I've reviewed, I'd be entirely happy with the short-and-sweet hack on 2.0 and 2.2 if you would like this to become the new logic for trunk. Would that appeal? Bill
