From: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Issues tangential to win32 support |
Date: | 2002-05-09 21:09:56 |
Message-ID: | 3CDAE5A4.3F374ABD@mohawksoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2002-05-09 at 22:36, mlw wrote:
> > Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > > note
> > > that many Unixes prefer multi-threaded models as well (Solaris comes to
> > > mind) so there's the possibility that a multi-threaded postgresql could
> > > enjoy better performance on more than just windows.
> >
> > The isolation of a process is very important to reliable operation. Going
> > threaded usually means allowing a single connection to bring down the whole
> > server.
>
> AFAIK we do that already in forked model - any time postmaster thinks
> that a dying child has corrupted shared memory it kills all its
> children.
I know there are cases when postmaster will kill all its children, but take the
case of a faulty user function that gets a segfault. That process dies and the
others continue. Without a lot of OS specific crap in postgres, that sort of
behavior would be difficult to have with a threaded server.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2002-05-09 21:33:40 | Re: Issues tangential to win32 support |
Previous Message | Iavor Raytchev | 2002-05-09 21:08:17 | Re: www.pgaccess.org - the official story (the way I saw it) |