| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Duane Currie <dcurrie(at)sandman(dot)acadiau(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Threads |
| Date: | 1999-08-03 16:10:17 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.10.9908031309090.27315-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> But still, I believe there are several different flavors of thread
> packages running around, so we will be opening a brand new can of
> portability worms. We'd best keep a "no threads" fallback option...
Sounds reasonable, but is it feasible? I think the general thread right
now is to go with partial threading, but how hard is it going to be to
implement even partial threading will maintaining the no-thread features?
Basically just massive #ifdef blocks? *raised eyebrow*
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-08-03 16:12:05 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade may be mortally wounded |
| Previous Message | Vince Vielhaber | 1999-08-03 16:03:36 | Re: [HACKERS] Threads |