<br>Thanks Jason, I think I had read that - I quite enjoy Edward's posts. Re-reading, seems to confirm what I thought, most (all?) of the FFI calls in HDBC-postgresql should be changed to "safe".<br><br>-- David<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Jason Dagit <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dagit@codersbase.com">dagit@codersbase.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:40 PM, David Powell <<a href="mailto:david@drp.id.au">david@drp.id.au</a>> wrote:<br>
> Greetings,<br>
><br>
> I'm having an issue with the HDBC-postgresql package that requires me to<br>
> manually patch it before installation for most of my use cases.<br>
><br>
> All the FFI calls in this package are marked "unsafe". Unfortunately, this<br>
> means that whenever I issue a slow sql query, all other processing stops.<br>
> In most places that I want to use this module, I've had to manually patch it<br>
> to at least mark the PQexec and PQexecParams calls as "safe".<br>
><br>
> Is there any reason these calls should not be marked as "safe"? I<br>
> understand that there a little extra runtime overhead with this, but I'd<br>
> have thought that negligible given all the other processing that goes on<br>
> with these particular calls under the hood.<br>
<br>
</div></div>Have you read this?<br>
<a href="http://blog.ezyang.com/2010/07/safety-first-ffi-and-threading/" target="_blank">http://blog.ezyang.com/2010/07/safety-first-ffi-and-threading/</a><br>
<br>
Perhaps it answers your questions?<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Jason<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>