Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contentionh]

From: "Maurice Gittens" <mgittens(at)gits(dot)nl>
To: "David Gould" <dg(at)illustra(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contentionh]
Date: 1998-05-11 15:18:38
Message-ID: 003e01bd7cf0$135b7cc0$fcf3b2c2@caleb..gits.nl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>dg(at)illustra(dot)com (David Gould) writes:
>> The idea that occurred to me is to have the postmaster
>> "pre-spawn" some servers in each (configurable) database. These would run
>> all the initialization and then just wait for a socket to be handed to
them.
>> The postmaster would during idle time replenish the pool of ready
servers.
>

Doesn't Apache do something similar? It should be easy enough to borrow
their
implementation.

Regards,
Maurice.

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1998-05-11 15:26:44 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contentionh]
Previous Message Tom Lane 1998-05-11 15:14:43 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contentionh]