On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:33:54AM +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: > > Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This patch replaces the pthreads code in ecpg with native win32 threads, > > in order to make it threadsafe. The idea is not to have to download the > > non-standard pthreads library on windows. > > > > Does it seem like it should be doing the right thing? Does somebody have > > a good test-case where ecpg breaks when not built thread-safe? (which > > would then also break when built thread-safe with a broken implementation) > > I have two questions about thread-safe ecpg. > > Q1. Don't you use CRITICAL_SECTION instead of Mutex (CreateMutex)? > I've heard there is a performance benefit in CRITICAL_SECTION. > If the mutex is shared only in one process, CS might be a better solution. > http://japan.internet.com/developer/img/article/873/17801.gif > http://world.std.com/~jmhart/csmutx.htm
Yes, CS can be slightly faster. Though under this use-pattern, I think it will not make a measurable difference at all. The reason I went with Mutex is that I wanted it to be as similar as possible to the pthreads code. > Q2. Do we need to use PQescapeStringConn() instead of PQescapeString()? > PQescapeString() is used to escape literals, and the documentation says > PQescapeStringConn() should be used in multi-threaded client programs. > > http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/libpq-exec.html#LIBPQ-EXEC-ESCAPE-STRING > | PQescapeString can be used safely in single-threaded client programs > | that work with only one PostgreSQL connection at a time Seems so, but that's unrelated to this patch ;-) I'll leave the final comment on that up to Michael. //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
