Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] Does Storage Manager support >2GB tables?

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?