| From: | Marten Feldtmann <marten(at)feki(dot)toppoint(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Brian Neal <aceface(at)bellsouth(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: database file size bloat |
| Date: | 2000-04-15 16:51:51 |
| Message-ID: | 200004151651.SAA25081@feki.toppoint.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
>
> AS for the process pool ... there are two camps here ... if you use
> threads, when one threads crashes the server, the server is done. With
> forking,if one backend dies, the server is still running ... in a 24x7
> shop, I'd rather the solution that doesn't die cause JoeBlow down the hall
> blew out something with his query :)
>
Due to the used shared memory I think, that this statement is not
that true for PostgreSQL ? If one backend process dies other backends
may also be killed by the postmaster ??
Marten
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen J Lombardo | 2000-04-15 18:03:23 | Re: Postgresqlism & Vacuum? |
| Previous Message | Jigishu P Bhatt | 2000-04-15 14:28:50 | PgAccess Scripts & Forms |