From: | Vitalii Tymchyshyn <tivv00(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: JDBC gripe list |
Date: | 2011-03-29 10:33:21 |
Message-ID: | 4D91B571.7080208@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
29.03.11 05:18, Craig Ringer написав(ла):
> On 03/27/2011 11:14 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> Timers can use one shared thread for all timers, either a generic
> timer thread provided by the JVM or (IMO better in this case) one
> dedicated to that timer pool. I think it'd be an ideal way to do it
> personally - the JDBC driver has several issues that'd be solvable by
> adding a single thread to use for various timers, etc.
>
> If there are concerns about the driver spawning a thread, it wouldn't
> be too tricky to make timer-requiring features conditional on a
> connection param, so if no connections that were going to use
> timer-based features were made, no thread would be spawned. Personally
> I don't think a single shared thread is worth worrying about, though.
> Have you *seen* the thread lists in a modern Java app? Threads are
> extremely low cost when idle, and are already heavily used throughout
> Java and the JVM.
BTW: May be a wrapper over Socket can be created that will allow
"hand-made" timers with socket channel selectors? In this case no new
thread will be required.
Best regards, Vitalii Tymchyshyn
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-03-29 14:11:46 | Re: JDBC gripe list |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2011-03-29 10:11:51 | Re: JDBC gripe list |