Re: Threads

From: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>
To: PGHackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Threads
Date: 2003-01-06 06:32:43
Message-ID: 200301061202.43247.shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Saturday 04 January 2003 03:20 am, you wrote:
> >I am sure, many of you would like to delete this message before reading,
> > hold on. :-)
>
> I'm afraid most posters did not read the message. Those who replied
>
> "Why bother?" did not address your challenge:

Our challenges may be..;-)

Anyway you are absolutely right. Looks like evrybody thought it as an attempt
to convert postgresql to a thread per connection model.

> >I think threads are useful in difference situations namely parallelising
> >blocking conditions and using multiple CPUs.
>
> This is indeed one of the few good reasons for threads. Indeed,
> large/robust systems use a mix.
>
> The consensus of the group is that those who do the work are not ready
> for threads. Which is fine. Looking into my crystal ball, I see that
> it will happen, though it appears so far away.

I hope it happens and I will be able to contribute to it if I can.

Shridhar

In response to

  • Re: Threads at 2003-01-03 21:50:48 from bbaker@priefert.com

Responses

  • Re: Threads at 2003-01-06 07:36:38 from Sailesh Krishnamurthy

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sailesh Krishnamurthy 2003-01-06 07:36:38 Re: Threads
Previous Message Neil Conway 2003-01-06 06:29:48 Re: New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...