| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | dg(at)illustra(dot)com (David Gould) |
| Cc: | scrappy(at)hub(dot)org, chris(at)topdog(dot)pas1(dot)logicon(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] Does Storage Manager support >2GB tables? |
| Date: | 1998-03-12 23:09:18 |
| Message-ID: | 199803122309.SAA10556@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Threading is a bit like raw devices. It sounds like a really good idea,
> particularly with M$ banging the "NT, now with threads" drum, but in real
> life there are some very good reasons not to thread. Particularly with an
> extensible product like Postgres where J-Random routine gets loaded at
> runtime. In a threaded system, J-Random routine needs to be pretty well
> perfect or the whole system comes down. In a process based system, unless
> it trashes something in the shared memory, only the one connection instance
> needs to come down. My experience with Illustra says that this is fairly
> important.
Yes, the threading topic has come up before, and I have never considered
it a big win. We want to remove the exec() from the startup, so we just
do a fork. Will save 0.001 seconds of startup.
That is a very easy win for us. I hadn't considered the synchonization
problems with palloc/pfree, and that could be a real problem.
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyungsoo Jeong | 1998-03-12 23:43:19 | |
| Previous Message | ocie | 1998-03-12 22:57:35 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] Does Storage Manager support >2GB tables? |