| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | mkscott(at)sacadia(dot)com |
| Cc: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Haroldo Stenger <hstenger(at)adinet(dot)com(dot)uy>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Threaded PosgreSQL server |
| Date: | 2002-02-08 00:44:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20020207204311.O50941-100000@earth.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 mkscott(at)sacadia(dot)com wrote:
> Making postgres functions thread-safe increases the flexibility of the
> codebase. Whether threading connections, sub-queries, increasing
> processor utilization, or some other unforseen optimization, having
> reentrant and thread-safe code leaves the door open for new ideas. Yes,
> writing reenterant code can be restrictive and a little more complex,
> but not much, the big work is the upfront cost of porting. I have done
> it done it once and gained a great deal on projects that I am working
> on.
Would be willing to take what you've learnt and work with the current CVS
tree towards making her thread-safe? Even small steps regularly taken
brings us closer to being able to use even *some* threading in the backend
...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-02-08 00:54:06 | Re: Threaded PosgreSQL server |
| Previous Message | D. Hageman | 2002-02-07 23:36:52 | Re: Threaded PosgreSQL server |