Re: [PATCHES] SRA Win32 sync() code

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  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