| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Islam Hegazy <islheg(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: modifying the tbale function |
| Date: | 2007-03-19 18:18:26 |
| Message-ID: | 45FED3F2.10701@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> Just a thought - I believe that there are portable user-space thread
> implementations that contain little or no machine-specific code. What
> if postgres used one of those to switch from the PL into the executor
> and back after, say, 1000 rows were returned by the SFR?
>
> What would be needed is basically some enhanced version of setjmp/longjmp
> that actually saves the stack, and not just resets the stackpointer.
>
> Since context switching would occur only at two well-defined places
> (Some return_next_row function that PLs call when a SFR returns a row,
> and in the executor if no more previously returned rows from that SFR
> are available), this wouldn't introduce the usual multithreading
> headache, but still allow to switch in and out of the PL interpreter.
>
>
This just sounds horribly fragile.
Are we really sure that this isn't a solution in search of a problem?
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-03-19 18:40:07 | Re: CLUSTER and MVCC |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-19 18:00:07 | Re: alter operator class |