On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 03:12, Alex Martelli wrote: > Generally, extending functionality (as opposed to: fixing bugs or clarifying > docs) is not a goal for 2.3.* -- but I don't know if the fact that bsddb > isn't thread-safe in 2.3 counts as "a bug", or rather as functionality > deliberately kept limited, to avoid e.g such bugs as the one you've just > removed, and other possibilities you mention: > > > - multithreaded bsddb use could deadlock depending on how it is used. > > I think that just having the 2.3.* docs explicitly mention the lack of > thread-safety might then perhaps be better than backporting the changes. It's just the DB-API that's not thread-safe. The full blown BerkeleyDB API (a.k.a. bsddb3) should be fine. It sure is tempting to claim that the lack of DB-API thread-safety for BerkeleyDB is a bug and should be fixed for 2.3.*, but I think Greg should make the final determination. If it isn't, then yes, the docs need to clearly state that's the case. -Barry
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4