Re: [HACKERS] fork()-safety, thread-safety - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] fork()-safety, thread-safety
Date
Msg-id 2396.1507243762@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] fork()-safety, thread-safety  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] fork()-safety, thread-safety
Re: [HACKERS] fork()-safety, thread-safety
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-10-05 17:31:07 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
>> You don't think eliminating a large difference between handling of WIN32
>> vs. POSIX is a good reason?

> I seems like you'd not really get a much reduced set of differences,
> just a *different* set of differences. After investing time.

Yeah -- unless we're prepared to drop threadless systems altogether,
this doesn't seem like it does much for maintainability.  It might even
be a net negative on that score, due to reducing the amount of testing
the now-legacy code path would get.

If there were reason to think we'd get a large performance benefit,
or some other concrete win, it might be worth putting time into this.
But I see no reason to believe that.

(There's certainly an argument to be made that no-one cares about
platforms without thread support anymore.  But I'm unconvinced that
rewriting existing code that works fine is the most productive
way to exploit such a choice if we were to make it.)
        regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nico Williams
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] fork()-safety, thread-safety
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] fork()-safety, thread-safety