From: | Steve Howe <howe(at)carcass(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
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: | 2002-06-06 01:05:11 |
Message-ID: | 527177268.20020605220511@carcass.dhs.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Thomas,
Wednesday, June 5, 2002, 7:02:33 PM, you wrote:
TL> ...
>> Good summary. I think we would support both threaded and fork()
>> operation, and users can control which they prefer. For a web backend
>> where many sessions are a single query, people may want to give up the
>> stability of fork() and go with threads, even on Unix.
TL> I would think that we would build on our strengths of having a fork/exec
TL> model for separate clients. A threaded model *could* benefit individual
TL> clients who are doing queries on multiprocessor servers, and I would be
TL> supportive of efforts to enable that.
Just a note - this is also the solution adopted by Interbase/Firebird
and it seems interesting. They already had the same problems
PostgreSQL has been under today.
Those interested in read about Interbase's architeture, please refer
to http://community.borland.com/article/0,1410,23217,00.html.
"Classic" is the fork() model, and the "SuperServer" is the threaded
model.
-------------
Best regards,
Steve Howe mailto:howe(at)carcass(dot)dhs(dot)org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nicolas Bazin | 2002-06-06 01:22:40 | Re: Roadmap for a Win32 port |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-06-06 00:55:32 | Re: pgaccess.org - invitation for a working meeting |