From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Win32 port list <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] SRA Win32 sync() code |
Date: | 2003-11-17 15:34:42 |
Message-ID: | 200311171534.hAHFYgM05734@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > So, by my logic, if we have 100 backends all doing updates, we will
> need
> > 10 * 100 or 1000 writer processes or threads to keep up with that
> load.
> > That seems quite excessive to me from a context switching and process
> > overhead perspective.
>
> Quick point:
> A single process using multiple threads dedicated to writing is an
> excellent optimization target on the win32 platform, (and if it is
> similarly useful on other platforms, so much the better). To my way of
> thinking, this is an ideal approach in the long run.
>
> Multiple processes scheduling writes (even it is only 10), IMO, is a bad
> idea because of the way process management on win32 works for various
> reasons.
Yes, Win32 is going to need something like this because it doesn't have
sync. The issue is whether Unix should use it too.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2003-11-18 13:12:59 | Re: SRA Win32 sync() code |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-11-17 15:33:49 | Re: [PATCHES] SRA Win32 sync() code |