On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 09:08:26AM -0500, William Rowe wrote: > 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?
I guess that's fine. It should at least be explicitly documented in the 2.0/2.2 backports as "here be dragons". Regards, joe
