On 2016-09-13 12:43:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I think it's not necessarily about the current system, but more about
> > future uses of the WaitEventSet stuff. Some of that is going to use a
> > lot more sockets. E.g. doing a parallel append over FDWs.
(note that I'm talking about network sockets not cpu sockets here)
> All fine, but the burden of proof has to be on the patch to show that
> it does something significant. We don't want to be carrying around
> platform-specific code, which necessarily has higher maintenance cost
> than other code, without a darn good reason.
No argument there.
> Also, if it's only a win on machines with dozens of CPUs, how many
> people are running *BSD on that kind of iron? I think Linux is by
> far the dominant kernel for such hardware. For sure Apple isn't
> selling any machines like that.
I'm not sure you need quite that big a machine, if you test a workload
that currently reaches the poll().
Regards,
Andres
