Re: fork()-safety, thread-safety

On October 5, 2017 5:15:41 PM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> On 2017-10-06 07:59:40 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> The only thing that gets me excited about a threaded postgres is the
>>> ability to have a PL/Java, PL/Mono etc that don't suck. We could do
>>> some really cool things that just aren't practical right now.
>
>> Faster parallelism with a lot less reinventing the wheel. Easier
>backend
>> / session separation. Shared caches.
>
>What you guys are talking about here is a threaded backend, which is a
>whole different matter from replacing the client-side threading that
>Nico
>was looking at. That would surely offer far higher rewards, but the
>costs
>to get there are likewise orders of magnitude greater.

No disagreement there. Don't really see much need for it client side though.

Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.