On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:28:38AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 22:20, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Simple: respond to 'em all with a one-line answer: "convince us why we > >> should use it". The burden of proof always seems to fall on the wrong > >> end in these discussions. > > > ... Now, it seems, that > > people don't want to answer questions at all as it's bothering the > > developers. > > Not at all. But rehashing issues that have been talked out repeatedly > is starting to bug some of us ;-). Perhaps the correct "standard > answer" is more like "this has been discussed before, please read the > list archives".
Let me explain my posting which started this `thread': - The developer's FAQ section 1.9 explains why PostgreSQL doesn't use threads (and many times it has been discussed on the list). - The TODO list has an item `Experiment with multi-threaded backend' and points to a mailing list discussion about the implementation by Myron Scott. His final comment is that he didn't `gain much performance' and `ended up with some pretty unmanagable code'. He also says that he wouldn't `personally try this again ... but there probably was a better way'. - I was going through the TODO list, and was wondering if I should try on this. But before doing that, naturally, I wanted to figure out if any of the core developers themselves have any plans of doing it. Now, I am trying hard to figure out why this `are you going to do this? otherwise I can try it', type posting was not differentiated from numerous `why don't YOU implement this feature' type postings ;) Anuradha -- Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.4.18-xfs-1.1) "Life is too important to take seriously." -- Corky Siegel ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html