Re: fork()-safety, thread-safety

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: fork()-safety, thread-safety
Date: 2017-10-05 22:49:22
Message-ID: 2396.1507243762@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2017-10-05 22:53:00 Re: fork()-safety, thread-safety
Previous Message Nico Williams 2017-10-05 22:39:51 Re: fork()-safety, thread-safety