From: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes |
Date: | 2003-09-26 14:58:00 |
Message-ID: | 200309262028.00180.shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 |
On Friday 26 September 2003 20:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> writes:
> > We really don't need threads to replace existing functionality. That
> > would be dog work.
>
> No, that's not the point at all. The problem we are facing at the
> moment with the Windows port is lack of fork(), which means there's
> no way for separate-subprocess backends to inherit variable values
> from the postmaster. Bruce has been trying to fix that by having the
> subprocesses somehow reload or re-deduce all those variables; which
> is messy, bug-prone, and probably race-condition-prone too. In a
> threaded implementation it would maybe be relatively easy to initialize
> a new thread's TLS by copying the postmaster thread's TLS, in which case
> a whole pile of as-yet-unwritten Windows-only code won't be needed.
Umm.. I understand child process created by createProcess does not inherit
variable values from parent process. That's where problem originates..
We can simply create a registry key that would contain shared memory id from
where a child process should get the variable values.
And that would need initialization function I talked about earlier. And since
anyways TLS->TLS copy is still needed anyways, I think this approach can
still save us dealing with threads.
God.. it doesn't get any less messy..I hope this is of some value..
Shridhar
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-26 15:01:34 | initdb failure (was Re: [GENERAL] sequence's plpgsql) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-26 14:52:13 | Re: [ADMIN] postgres 6.2 vacuum |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2003-09-26 15:43:27 | Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-26 14:49:16 | Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes |