Re: Using Threads?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Using Threads? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6701.975961759@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Using Threads? (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: