Re: Threaded PosgreSQL server - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Threaded PosgreSQL server
Date
Msg-id 23872.1013185071@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Threaded PosgreSQL server  (<mkscott@sacadia.com>)
Responses Re: Threaded PosgreSQL server  (Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>)
Re: Threaded PosgreSQL server  (<mkscott@sacadia.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
<mkscott@sacadia.com> writes:
> I can definitely take a stab aat it.  Maybe I can make a test case with
> some globals that are accessed often submit some patches to see what
> people think.  Can I send them to you?

I have a sneaking feeling that what you are going to come up with is a
multi-megabyte patch to convert CurrentMemoryContext into a non-global,
which will require changing the parameter list of damn near every
routine in the backend.

Personally I will vote for rejecting such a patch, as it will uglify the
code (and break nearly all existing user-written extension functions)
far more than is justified by what it accomplishes: exactly zero, in
terms of near-term usefulness.

I think what's more interesting to discuss at this stage is the
considerations I alluded to before: what are we going to do with the
caches and other potentially-sharable datastructures?  Without a
credible design for those issues, there is no point in sweating the
small-but-annoying stuff.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Matthew T. O'Connor"
Date:
Subject: Re: Why dump/restore to upgrade?
Next
From: Justin Clift
Date:
Subject: Re: 7.2 - changed array_out() - quotes vs no quotes