Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes

From: "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes
Date: 2003-09-26 18:12:06
Message-ID: D90A5A6C612A39408103E6ECDD77B829408BCA@voyager.corporate.connx.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 9:27 AM
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Shridhar Daithankar; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org;
> pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes
>
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > One solution is for me to continue with this in the Win32
> CVS version
> > until I have fork/exec() working on Unix, then test on
> Win32. I think
> > that could be done in a few weeks, if not less.
>
> > Another solution, already mentioned, is to use threads and
> TLS. This
> > is what SRA's code uses. I know SRA wants to contribute that code
> > back to the community, so I can ask them to see if they are
> ready to
> > release it.
>
> If you are willing to expend the effort, I think it would be
> worth the time to pursue both approaches. We don't yet have
> enough info to decide which one will be cleaner, so we need
> to push forward on both until we can make a realistic comparison.

I think the ideal situation would be a server that both threads and
forks.

Sometimes, we want the server to take on a new personality (with the
rights of the attaching user). In such a case, threading is not a
sufficient answer. Also, a forked process is a bit safer (though you
can put a try/catch around threads).

For performance with multiple queries from a single user, threads are
going to be faster than forking. I think that the best model will be a
server that does both.

I know that there is some aversion to using C++, but the ACE framework
offers a consistent threading model that works for just about every
computer under the sun.
http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE.html

The license is basically BSD (it is called ACE, but it works exactly
like a BSD license). With ACE, you program to a single API, and the
code works the same on every platform with a simple recompile. It might
even be worthwhile to use the ACE higher level components to create a
server that supports multiple models of connection and threading.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-09-26 18:12:39 Re: initdb failure (was Re: [GENERAL] sequence's plpgsql)
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-09-26 18:10:25 Re: 2-phase commit

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2003-09-27 05:20:22 Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-09-26 16:35:40 Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes