Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> writes:
> ... My point is
> that we’re doing pretty unreasonable and inefficient contortions to
> develop new features -- we're not just happily chugging along without
> threads at no cost.
Sure, but it's not like chugging along *with* threads would be no-cost.
Others have already pointed out the permanent downsides of that, such
as loss of isolation between sessions leading to debugging headaches
(and, I predict, more than one security-grade bug).
I agree that if we were building this system from scratch today,
we'd probably choose thread-per-session not process-per-session.
But the costs of getting to that from where we are will be enormous.
I seriously doubt that the net benefits could justify that work,
no matter how long you want to look forward. It's not really
significantly different from "let's rewrite the server in
C++/Rust/$latest_hotness".
regards, tom lane
