From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Junfeng Zhang <junfengz(at)cae(dot)wisc(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Using Threads? |
Date: | 2000-12-04 06:42:58 |
Message-ID: | 3A2B3CF2.88C3E55D@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I am new to postgreSQL. When I read the documents, I find out the Postmaster
> daemon actual spawns a new backend server process to serve a new client
> request. Why not use threads instead? Is that just for a historical reason,
> or some performance/implementation concern?
Both. Not all systems supported by PostgreSQL have a standards-compliant
threading implementation (even more true for the systems PostgreSQL has
supported over the years).
But there are performance and reliability considerations too. A
thread-only server is likely more brittle than a process-per-client
implementation, since all threads share the same address space.
Corruption in one server might more easily propagate to other servers.
The time to start a backend is quite often small compared to the time
required for a complete session, so imho the differences in absolute
speed are not generally significant.
- Thomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Don Baccus | 2000-12-04 07:01:44 | RE: 8192 BLCKSZ ?] |
Previous Message | Don Baccus | 2000-12-04 06:32:47 | Re: beta testing version |