Thanks for all the help!

After thinking about this a bit more, and reading what you all had to
say, I can see why this does not work. I recall a similar problem
with the MS JetDB engine and threads.

Thanks for the help!
Dan

--- In ib-support@y..., "Martijn Tonies" <m.tonies@u...> wrote:
> > >>>At this point another thread may
> > >>>acquire this db handle. Is this safe?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>No. Start each thread and create the db handle within the
thread.
> > >>
> > >>You need to think about keeping a pool of threads and letting
each
> > >>thread signal when it is ready for new work.
> > >
> > >
> > > Why is this different? Or actually, why doesn't the other
approach work?
> > >
> >
> > In the first approach a pool of database handles are created in
> > (presumably) the main thread and a handle is passed to a worker
thread
> > as required. This is the crux of the problem. The current library
is
> > only thread safe if the database handle is created and used
within the
> > same thread.
>
> So the connection handles have a context of the thread?
>
> Weird... ah well - I've always done the connection/thread thing...
>
>
> With regards,
>
> Martijn Tonies
> InterBase Workbench - the developer tool for InterBase
> http://www.upscene.com
>
> Firebird Workbench - the developer tool for Firebird
> http://www.upscene.com
>
> Upscene Productions
> http://www.upscene.com
>
> "This is an object-oriented system.
> If we change anything, the users object."