From: | Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Igor Kovalenko <Igor(dot)Kovalenko(at)motorola(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Roadmap for a Win32 port |
Date: | 2002-06-05 22:21:22 |
Message-ID: | 3CFE8EE2.46020ACC@fourpalms.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
...
> Notion:
> Have one version do both. Your server can fork(), and your sever can
> thread. It can fork() and thread, it can fork() or thread.
> That gives the best of all worlds. One client who has his attachments
> to a database all setup might want to do a bunch of similar queries.
> Hence a threaded model is nice.
> A server may be set up to clone the rights of the attaching process for
> security reasons. Then you launch a new server with fork().
Right. If/when that is possible then let's do it, as long as the cost is
not too high. But the intermediate steps are a possibility also, and are
not precluded from discussion.
This will all work out as a *convergence* of interests imho. And there
is no great identifiable benefit for our current crop of platforms for
going to a threaded model *unless* that enables queries for a single
client to execute in parallel (all imho of course ;).
So our convergence of interests for all platforms is in enabling
threading for these two purposes, and focusing on enabling the
multithreaded single client *first* means that the current crop of
clients don't have to accept all negatives while we start on the road to
better support of Win32 machines.
- Thomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jon Franz | 2002-06-05 22:50:46 | Re: Roadmap for a Win32 port |
Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2002-06-05 22:09:29 | Re: Roadmap for a Win32 port |