> I saw a bunch of nays and a lot of “abstains” a lack of vote against something is not a vote of approval. There's definitely some ayes, including the people

> I saw a bunch of nays and a lot of “abstains” a lack of vote against something is not a vote of approval. There's definitely some ayes, including the people mentioned in the post upthread. > Basically Postgres loses 10% performance vs threads[1] because of its Process based model, and leaves a bunch of caching related performance on the table but has the benefit that a process crash doesn’t bring down the entire database. I don't think that's accurate at all. One of the big problems is that it forces us to make bad architectural choices to deal with the limitations, including a lot of code duplication. > Basically Postgres loses 10% performance vs threads[1] because of its Process based model, and leaves a bunch of caching related performance on the table but has the benefit that a process crash doesn’t bring down the entire database. A process crash does bring the entire database down today. > Personal View: Postgres development stalled in the early/mid 2000s and MySQL rose to prominence (so around V7/V8 time). While there were many people involved, I believe Tom Moor was instrumental in “dragging” Postgres development into V9/V10 land where it really started out-evolving it’s competition, terraforming the landscape for all the features it has now (thanks to every contributor who helped make it what it is today) this proposal while maybe well intentioned has the potential to drag Postgres into a multi year “dark age” of buggy code and perceived lack of progress. To be hyperbolic about it - that could be the start of an extinction event Nobody of that name has worked meaningfully on postgres from what I can tell. And I worked on PG during that time.