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
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? |