| From: | james <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <Pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres with pthread |
| Date: | 2017-12-10 16:24:56 |
| Message-ID: | bdadca7e-d2e9-aca7-3c83-89e7e4b34fcb@mansionfamily.plus.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/12/2017 17:26, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> An additional issue is that this could break a lot of extensions and
> in a way that it is not apparent at compile time. This means we may
> need to break all extensions to force extensions authors to check if
> they are thread safe.
>
> I do not like making life hard for out extension community, but if the
> gains are big enough it might be worth it.
It seems to me that the counter-argument is that extensions that
naturally support threading will benefit. For example it may be a lot
more practical to have CLR or JVM extensions.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-12-10 16:55:04 | Inconsistency in plpgsql's error context reports |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-12-10 15:42:24 | Re: Rethinking MemoryContext creation |