| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: kqueue |
| Date: | 2016-09-13 18:23:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20160913182306.otif6zfecvkdnjjb@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jesper Pedersen | 2016-09-13 18:34:36 | Re: Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes |
| Previous Message | Victor Wagner | 2016-09-13 18:21:53 | Inheriting PostgresNode object |