On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:28:38AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Copeland <greg@copelandconsulting.net> 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
thelist).
- The TODO list has an item `Experiment with multi-threaded backend' and points to a mailing list discussion about the
implementationby Myron Scott. His final comment is that he didn't `gain much performance' and `ended up with some
prettyunmanagable 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
wantedto 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