From: | "Trevor Talbot" <quension(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] 8.2.3: Server crashes on Windows using Eclipse/Junit |
Date: | 2007-10-22 20:44:29 |
Message-ID: | 90bce5730710221344r6262db3bn85e7a8796c3ba467@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 10/22/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > I was planning to make it even easier and let Windows do the job for us,
> > just using RegisterWaitForSingleObject(). Does the same - one thread per
> > 64 backends, but we don't have to deal with the queueing ourselves.
> > Should be rather trivial to do.
>
> How can that possibly work? Backends have to be able to run
> concurrently, and I don't see how they'll do that if they share a stack.
This is about what postmaster does for its SIGCHLD wait equivalent on
win32. The 64 comes from Windows' object/event mechanism, which lets
you perform a blocking wait on up to that many handles in a single
call. Currently postmaster is creating a new thread to wait on only
one backend at a time, so it ends up with too many threads.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-10-22 20:45:02 | Re: [HACKERS] 8.2.3: Server crashes on Windows using Eclipse/Junit |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-22 20:26:10 | Re: [HACKERS] 8.2.3: Server crashes on Windows using Eclipse/Junit |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-10-22 20:45:02 | Re: [HACKERS] 8.2.3: Server crashes on Windows using Eclipse/Junit |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-22 20:34:43 | Re: Feature Freeze date for 8.4 |