| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Junfeng Zhang <junfengz(at)cae(dot)wisc(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Using Threads? |
| Date: | 2000-12-04 20:29:19 |
| Message-ID: | 6701.975961759@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
>> Why not use threads instead? Is that just for a
>> historical reason, or some performance/implementation concern?
> Several reasons, 'historical' probably being the strongest right now
> ... since PostgreSQL was never designed for threading, its about as
> 'un-thread-safe' as they come, and cleaning that up will/would be a
> complete nightmare (should eventually be done, mind you) ...
> The other is stability ... right now, if one backend drops away, for
> whatever reason, it doesn't take down the whole system ... if you ran
> things as one process, and that one process died, you just lost your whole
> system ...
Portability is another big reason --- using threads would create lots
of portability headaches for platforms that had no threads or an
incompatible threads library. (Not to mention buggy threads libraries,
not-quite-thread-safe libc routines, yadda yadda.)
The amount of work required looks far out of proportion to the payoff...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-04 20:35:47 | Re: Wrong FOR UPDATE lock type |
| Previous Message | Bruce Guenter | 2000-12-04 20:28:10 | Re: Using Threads? |