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

From: Brett McCormick <brett(at)work(dot)chicken(dot)org>
To: "Maurice Gittens" <mgittens(at)gits(dot)nl>
Cc: "David Gould" <dg(at)illustra(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contentionh]
Date: 1998-05-11 15:37:08
Message-ID: 13655.6758.220979.189918@abraxas.scene.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


They do it by having all children perform a "listen" on the socket..
would the ipc stuff function as usual in this case? I'm not clear on
how the ipc stuff works.

On Mon, 11 May 1998, at 17:18:38, Maurice Gittens wrote:

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message AliE 1998-05-11 15:39:44 Is there any way to check the status of the Index table.
Previous Message Brett McCormick 1998-05-11 15:32:16 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contentionh]