From: | "Colin 't Hart" <cthart(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Porting to Native WindowsNT/2000 |
Date: | 2001-09-03 18:30:11 |
Message-ID: | 9n0i5p$2207$1@news.tht.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ian Lance Taylor (& others) wrote:
> > This is true. However, a process-pool architecture would benefit
Postgres
> > on other platforms besides Windows. Postgresql has been ported to the
> > HP3000 MPE/iX operating system, for example, which is POSIX-compliant,
but
> > has an awfully slow fork().
>
> On the other hand, POSIX-compliant systems generally are moving toward
> a faster and faster fork, as they should given the nature of POSIX
> programs.
>
> A process pool architecture for a system like Postgres would require
> very careful attention to memory usage, in order to be able to return
> swap space to the system or at least avoid using it. Otherwise, I
> believe the different processes would fragment memory over time,
> decreasing system performance. Process pools work best for systems
> with fixed memory usage.
What about a pre-forked model?
What about using the Apache Portable Runtime? The Apache & Postgres licenses
are compatible, are they not?
Cheers,
Colin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | johan27 | 2001-09-03 19:02:33 | BIG problem !!:fatal 1:set user id user admin is not in eg shadow |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-09-03 18:22:03 | Re: cannot detect too many clients |