Re: PostgreSQL
Chris Wareham <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.devel.general,gmane.os.netbsd.devel.performance,gmane.os.netbsd.current,gmane.os.netbsd.devel.network |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Thursday, 2 February 2006 at 15:37:29 +0000, Patrick Welche wrote: > >>On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 06:58:04PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> >>>* Neil Conway <[email protected]> [060201 18:49] wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 00:49 +0000, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>>But threads aren't always the best thing out there, the code gets >>>a lot more complicated and crash prone and you wind up sometimes >>>getting screwed because third party code isn't thread safe... >> >>Isn't your last paragraph the reason PostgreSQL sticks to processes? > > > I'd guess no. It might be a good reason to do so, but the real reason > is what I stated in a previous message: it was the only option at the > time. And "if it works, don't fix it". > I saw a recent statement on a PostgreSQL mailing list that one reason they stick to a forking model rather than attempting to switch to a threaded one, is because a number of platforms still don't support threads natively. Chris