From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Haroldo Stenger <hstenger(at)adinet(dot)com(dot)uy> |
Cc: | Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Threaded PosgreSQL server |
Date: | 2002-02-05 19:36:41 |
Message-ID: | 20020205153107.S44048-100000@earth.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Haroldo Stenger wrote:
> Dann Corbit wrote:
> >
> > Are there any plans to merge the sources from the experimental threaded
> > server and the forked server so that a compile switch could choose the
> > model?
>
> Just a question, in order to elighten my thought. Does the current experimental
> threaded server disable multi-process model? Or does it *add* the functionality
> as a compile switch? (This would be the other way round as the one you pointed
> out.)
>
> I think it is important as to evaluate resistance to go multithreading.
>
> If they disabled the original method, I agree with Tom. If they *merged* both
> flawlessly, I would try to consider it for the current tree.
>
> Any comments?
That's kinda what I was hoping ... is it something that could be
seamlessly integrated to have minimal impact on the code itself ... even
if there was some way of having a 'thread.c' vs 'non-thread.c' that could
be link'd in, with wrapper functions?
Tha again, has anyone looked at the apache project? Apache2 has several
"process models" ... prefork being one (like ours), or a 'worker', which
is a prefork/threaded model where you can have n child processes, with m
'threads' inside of each ... not sure if something like that coul be
retrofit'd into what we have, but ... ?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2002-02-05 19:47:26 | Re: Threaded PosgreSQL server |
Previous Message | Brett Schwarz | 2002-02-05 19:15:30 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL v7.2 Final Release |