On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:21:06 -0700 Warren Young <war...@etr-usa.com> wrote:
> https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2006/EECS-2006-1.pdf > > Threads aren?t just distasteful from an implementation standpoint, > they?re *mathematically unsound*. Thank you for that. I think I encounted that paper late one night and never got back to it. This was poignant: "I conjecture that most multi-threaded general-purpose applications are, in fact, so full of concurrency bugs that as multi-core architectures become commonplace, these bugs will begin to show up as system failures." I guess it was about the year 2005 when we upgraded our SQL Server to IIRC a machine with 4 processors. For the first time, we had hardware that could execute multiple threads literally simultaneously. And for the first time some queries failed to execute unless we set the maximum degree of parallelism to 1. The server itself was also unstable. As I recall, we used certain settings in the registry to restrict the parallelism in the server until later releases made that unnecessary. Concurrency bugs exposed by multi-core architectures? Ya think? --jkl _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
