Re: serverless postgresql

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: serverless postgresql
Date: 2004-01-15 21:21:19
Message-ID: 24512.1074201679@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> writes:
> Do the developers generally oppose the idea of a threaded (but
> non-embedded) backend as well? If the backend is thread-safe, then users
> can still choose to run multiprocess or multithreaded right?

The backend isn't thread-safe. There have been repeated discussions
about using threading in the backend (see the pgsql-hackers archives),
but so far no one has made a convincing case for it.

BTW, this whole discussion is getting pretty off-topic for -general;
I'd suggest pursuing it on -hackers.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message James M Moe 2004-01-15 21:26:20 Re: Foreign key question
Previous Message culley harrelson 2004-01-15 21:18:16 why isn't TEXT a key word?