Ok, thanks. Att,
Fred 2012/1/24 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >> I doubt it. Almost nothing in the backend is thread-safe. You can't > >> acquire a heavyweight lock, a lightweight lock, or a spinlock. You > >> can't do anything that might elog() or ereport(). None of those > >> things are reentrant. > > > > Not to mention palloc, another extremely fundamental and non-reentrant > > subsystem. > > > > Possibly we could work on making all that stuff re-entrant, but it would > > be a huge amount of work for a distant and uncertain payoff. > > Right. I think it makes more sense to try to get parallelism working > first with the infrastructure we have. Converting to use threading, > if we ever do it at all, should be something we view as a later > performance optimization. But I suspect we won't want to do it > anyway; I think there will be easier ways to get where we want to be. > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >
