Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> writes:
>> And what will you do instead? It would be fine I think for pgbench to
>> not allow --jobs different from 1 on a threadless platform, but not for
>> it to fail to work altogether.
> Sure. No thread really means working with only one thread.
>> It looks to me like allowing it to compile without that code would take
>> nearly as much effort/mess as what's there now.
> My motivation is to simplify how things are done by simply assuming that
> threads are available and can share data, esp for counters.
pgbench does not get to "assume that threads are available", at least
not as long as the project as a whole supports --disable-thread-safety.
As I said, I wouldn't have a problem with restricting the --jobs setting
on threadless platforms, which seems like it would fix your problem since
you wouldn't need to have more than one process involved.
regards, tom lane