Re: modifying the tbale function
От | Islam Hegazy |
---|---|
Тема | Re: modifying the tbale function |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 017b01c76a56$88743f80$0200a8c0@islheg обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | modifying the tbale function ("Islam Hegazy" <islheg@hotmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
So, I understood from all those opinions that much of the work is to be done in the interface language interpreter not postgresql code itself. Am I right or I missed something? Regards Islam Hegazy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net> To: "Florian G. Pflug" <fgp@phlo.org> Cc: "Gregory Stark" <stark@enterprisedb.com>; "Richard Huxton" <dev@archonet.com>; "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com>; "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; "Neil Conway" <neilc@samurai.com>; "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog@svana.org>; "Islam Hegazy" <islheg@hotmail.com>; <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 12:18 PM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] modifying the tbale function > Florian G. Pflug wrote: >> Just a thought - I believe that there are portable user-space thread >> implementations that contain little or no machine-specific code. What >> if postgres used one of those to switch from the PL into the executor >> and back after, say, 1000 rows were returned by the SFR? >> >> What would be needed is basically some enhanced version of setjmp/longjmp >> that actually saves the stack, and not just resets the stackpointer. >> >> Since context switching would occur only at two well-defined places >> (Some return_next_row function that PLs call when a SFR returns a row, >> and in the executor if no more previously returned rows from that SFR >> are available), this wouldn't introduce the usual multithreading >> headache, but still allow to switch in and out of the PL interpreter. >> >> > > This just sounds horribly fragile. > > Are we really sure that this isn't a solution in search of a problem? > > cheers > > andrew > > > >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: