From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: famous multi-process architectures |
Date: | 2008-09-10 00:32:07 |
Message-ID: | 48C71587.3040409@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Markus Wanner wrote:
> "Google got inspired by Postgres: they use the same
> multi-process architecture for their browser as Postgres
Surely apache was (and optionally still is) a more famous multi-process architecture.
But is it really a big deal?
Isn't the only difference is that in a multi-process architecture memory
is protected from other processes unless you explicitly mark it shared while
in a multi-threaded architecture memory's shared unless you explicitly mark it
thread-local?
That some OS architectures implement one or the other of these poorly -- poor
performance of either threads or processes; or poor protection of thread-local
storage -- but that seems like an OS quality-of-implementation detail. Other
differences (which thread/process gets a signal, how are file-handled shared)
seem to be minor details that vary from OS to OS anyway.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Alan Brewer | 2008-09-10 04:34:27 | PgUS Memberships and Board Nominations Now Open |
Previous Message | Naz | 2008-09-09 18:41:15 | Re: Binaries vs Source |