Anuradha Ratnaweera <anuradha@lklug.pdn.ac.lk> writes:
> Let me explain my posting which started this `thread':
> - The developer's FAQ section 1.9 explains why PostgreSQL doesn't use
> threads (and many times it has been discussed on the list).
> - The TODO list has an item `Experiment with multi-threaded backend' and
> points to a mailing list discussion about the implementation by Myron
> Scott. His final comment is that he didn't `gain much performance'
> and `ended up with some pretty unmanagable code'. He also says that
> he wouldn't `personally try this again ... but there probably was a
> better way'.
> - I was going through the TODO list, and was wondering if I should try
> on this. But before doing that, naturally, I wanted to figure out if
> any of the core developers themselves have any plans of doing it.
> Now, I am trying hard to figure out why this `are you going to do this?
> otherwise I can try it', type posting was not differentiated from
> numerous `why don't YOU implement this feature' type postings ;)
Well, if you'd actually said the above, we'd probably have replied to
the effect of "we still think it's an unpromising project, but try it
if you like". By my reading, your earliest postings in this thread
showed no sign of any familiarity at all with the history:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-10/msg00704.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-10/msg00707.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-10/msg00711.php
and so you got the sort of response that's usually given to clueless
newbies...
regards, tom lane
