| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OK, so culicidae is *still* broken |
| Date: | 2017-04-24 18:43:11 |
| Message-ID: | 1784.1493059391@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-04-24 23:14:40 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> In the long run we'll probably be forced toward threading or far pointers.
> I'll vote for removing the windows port, before going for that. And I'm
> not even joking.
Me too. We used to *have* that kind of code, ie relative pointers into
the shmem segment, and it was a tremendous notational mess and very
bug-prone. I do not wish to go back.
(We have accepted that kind of overhead for DSM segments, but the
intention I think is to allow only very trivial data structures in
the DSM segments. Losing compiler pointer type checking for data
structures like the lock or PGPROC tables would be horrid.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-04-24 18:43:53 | Re: Cached plans and statement generalization |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2017-04-24 18:42:12 | to-do item for explain analyze of hash aggregates? |