| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: kqueue |
| Date: | 2016-09-13 16:43:36 |
| Message-ID: | 8119.1473785016@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 2016-09-13 16:08:39 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> So, if I've understood correctly, the purpose of this patch is to improve
>> performance on a multi-CPU system, which has the kqueue() function. Most
>> notably, FreeBSD?
> I think it's not necessarily about the current system, but more about
> future uses of the WaitEventSet stuff. Some of that is going to use a
> lot more sockets. E.g. doing a parallel append over FDWs.
All fine, but the burden of proof has to be on the patch to show that
it does something significant. We don't want to be carrying around
platform-specific code, which necessarily has higher maintenance cost
than other code, without a darn good reason.
Also, if it's only a win on machines with dozens of CPUs, how many
people are running *BSD on that kind of iron? I think Linux is by
far the dominant kernel for such hardware. For sure Apple isn't
selling any machines like that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-13 16:53:00 | Re: PassDownLimitBound for ForeignScan/CustomScan |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2016-09-13 16:31:22 | Re: Hash Indexes |