On 2016-09-13 12:43:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > I think it's not necessarily about the current system, but more about > > future uses of the WaitEventSet stuff. Some of that is going to use a > > lot more sockets. E.g. doing a parallel append over FDWs.
(note that I'm talking about network sockets not cpu sockets here) > All fine, but the burden of proof has to be on the patch to show that > it does something significant. We don't want to be carrying around > platform-specific code, which necessarily has higher maintenance cost > than other code, without a darn good reason. No argument there. > Also, if it's only a win on machines with dozens of CPUs, how many > people are running *BSD on that kind of iron? I think Linux is by > far the dominant kernel for such hardware. For sure Apple isn't > selling any machines like that. I'm not sure you need quite that big a machine, if you test a workload that currently reaches the poll(). Regards, Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
