| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org, andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: APR 1.0 released |
| Date: | 2004-09-04 23:09:16 |
| Message-ID: | 16368.1094339356@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> writes:
> Don't you think that use of APR could save time ?
No, because we've already *done* the work it would purport to save.
It would cost us work to adapt our code to sit on top of APR, and
it's not clear to me that we'd be getting anything for it.
IIRC, this was proposed before and we looked at APR in some detail,
and came to the conclusion that it wouldn't be worth changing. See
the archives.
> Don't you think in some cases spawn a couple of
> thread could improve it ?
The fact that we were on top of APR would not automagically mean that
we could thread-ize the backend, nor that we would want to.
> I don't know if APR provide a spin lock mechanism,
You don't even know that, but you're confident that we can throw away
our spinlock work and use APR anyway. You're wasting our time. Get
some evidence if you want to propose this.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-09-04 23:14:28 | Re: APR 1.0 released |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-09-04 23:01:44 | Re: Adding columns in the middle of tables |