| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Haroldo Stenger <hstenger(at)adinet(dot)com(dot)uy>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Threaded PosgreSQL server |
| Date: | 2002-02-07 18:40:53 |
| Message-ID: | 1013107253.6994.5.camel@taru.tm.ee |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 19:13, mlw wrote:
> Justin Clift wrote:
>
> Also:
>
> Think of file handles. In a threaded version of postgreSQL, all
> connections will be competing for file handles. I think the limit in
> Linux is 1024.
From what I've seen we are more likely to hit the per-system file handle
limit when all separate forks open the same files over and over again,
so as the number of processes grows we will be worse off than usin the
same file handles for all connections in threaded mode.
> I think threading connections is a VERY bad idea. I am dubious that the
> amount of work will result in a decent return on investment.
This whole thread started with a notion that this has already been done
once and the idea was to investigate what could be brought over to main
forked-only (the threaded version could be forked at the same time)
codebase.
----------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2002-02-07 18:45:23 | Re: Threaded PosgreSQL server |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-02-07 18:40:34 | Re: Automatic transactions in psql |