Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> Yes, but those framework libraries are typically supposed to prevent
> such problems from being seen by applications calling them.
How exactly would a library prevent such problems? In particular,
let's see a proposal for how libpq might make it look like a fork
was transparent for an open connection.
> This is
> certainly sloppy practice on Apple's part, and it leave us wondering if
> we are using anything that might be a problem. The bottom line is that
> we don't know.
> Libraries are supposed to document these limitations, as we do with
> libpq. I wonder if they just documented fork() and now don't feel they
> need to document these limitations per-library.
Do we know that they *didn't* document such issues per-library?
Mentioning the risk under fork() too doesn't seem unreasonable.
Not trying to sound like an Apple apologist, but I see a whole lot of
bashing going on here on the basis of darn little evidence.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
