On 6 October 2017 at 06:49, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> On 2017-10-05 17:31:07 -0500, Nico Williams wrote: >>> You don't think eliminating a large difference between handling of WIN32 >>> vs. POSIX is a good reason? > >> I seems like you'd not really get a much reduced set of differences, >> just a *different* set of differences. After investing time. > > Yeah -- unless we're prepared to drop threadless systems altogether, > this doesn't seem like it does much for maintainability. It might even > be a net negative on that score, due to reducing the amount of testing > the now-legacy code path would get. > > If there were reason to think we'd get a large performance benefit, > or some other concrete win, it might be worth putting time into this. > But I see no reason to believe that. > > (There's certainly an argument to be made that no-one cares about > platforms without thread support anymore. But I'm unconvinced that > rewriting existing code that works fine is the most productive > way to exploit such a choice if we were to make it.)
The only thing that gets me excited about a threaded postgres is the ability to have a PL/Java, PL/Mono etc that don't suck. We could do some really cool things that just aren't practical right now. Not compelling to a wide audience, really. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers