| From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ice-broker scan thread |
| Date: | 2005-11-29 04:19:50 |
| Message-ID: | 438BD6E6.1000107@paradise.net.nz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>
>>I haven't had time to prototype whether we can easily implement async IO
>
>
> Just as with any suggestion to depend on threads, you are going to have
> to show results that border on astounding to have any chance of getting
> this in. Otherwise the portability issues are just going to make it not
> worth the trouble.
Do these ideas require threads in principle? ISTM that there could be
(additional) process(es) waiting to perform pre-fetching or async io,
and we could use the usual IPC machinary to talk between them...
cheers
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Boreham | 2005-11-29 04:34:26 | Re: ice-broker scan thread |
| Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2005-11-29 04:14:38 | Re: ice-broker scan thread |