Paul J Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: > >> When was it decided that we are "going multithreaded". > > No decision yet, afaik. I'm guessing Aaron's just getting exited about > the idea... We're all mostly just awaiting the results from Leifs > efforts, so we cn run our own performance checks. Seeing is believing, > indeed.
Hmm, yeah, true, no decision yet, but lots of excitement ;-) However, there are some things that simply need to be threaded. Afaict, Oracle's connection overhead is so huge that nothing getting near it can survive without threading. I'd like to see some of that with my own eyes, but I'm confident that the numbers I have read over the years aren't entirely off base. >> All I have read >> is that Leif is working on a patch that includes a pthreads >> implementation. I have yet to see any evidence that the results are >> worth the effort. Remember that the additional effort is not just the >> initial implementation but also includes the additional maintenance >> since threaded code is more complicated and bugs more subtle and harder >> to track down. > > Being somewhat intimate with the current imap codebase, I'm skeptical > it can be done in a clean and maintainable manner. But given the size > of the diff Leifs mentions, perhaps he has solved some of the problems >I myself have been wrestling with :-) It is good if that means that there's more than one person familiar with this code, but let's balance that against not duplicating too much effort. Aaron --
