Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> On Thursday,  2 February 2006 at 15:37:29 +0000, Patrick Welche wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 06:58:04PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>>
>>>* Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> [060201 18:49] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 00:49 +0000, segv@netctl.net wrote:
>>>
>>>But threads aren't always the best thing out there, the code gets
>>>a lot more complicated and crash prone and you wind up sometimes
>>>getting screwed because third party code isn't thread safe...
>>
>>Isn't your last paragraph the reason PostgreSQL sticks to processes?
> 
> 
> I'd guess no.  It might be a good reason to do so, but the real reason
> is what I stated in a previous message: it was the only option at the
> time.  And "if it works, don't fix it".
> 

I saw a recent statement on a PostgreSQL mailing list that one reason
they stick to a forking model rather than attempting to switch to a
threaded one, is because a number of platforms still don't support
threads natively.

Chris