From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: getting rid of "thread fork emulation" in pgbench? |
Date: | 2015-03-29 18:18:48 |
Message-ID: | 25194.1427653128@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
>> And what will you do instead? It would be fine I think for pgbench to
>> not allow --jobs different from 1 on a threadless platform, but not for
>> it to fail to work altogether.
> Sure. No thread really means working with only one thread.
>> It looks to me like allowing it to compile without that code would take
>> nearly as much effort/mess as what's there now.
> My motivation is to simplify how things are done by simply assuming that
> threads are available and can share data, esp for counters.
pgbench does not get to "assume that threads are available", at least
not as long as the project as a whole supports --disable-thread-safety.
As I said, I wouldn't have a problem with restricting the --jobs setting
on threadless platforms, which seems like it would fix your problem since
you wouldn't need to have more than one process involved.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-03-29 18:20:10 | Re: improve pgbench syntax error messages |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-03-29 17:49:30 | Re: getting rid of "thread fork emulation" in pgbench? |