| From: | "D(dot) Hageman" <dhageman(at)dracken(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "D(dot) Hageman" <dhageman(at)dracken(dot)com>, mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Haroldo Stenger <hstenger(at)adinet(dot)com(dot)uy>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Threaded PosgreSQL server |
| Date: | 2002-02-07 23:31:03 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0202071728380.1533-100000@typhon.eecs.ku.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7 Feb 2002, Doug McNaught wrote:
> "D. Hageman" <dhageman(at)dracken(dot)com> writes:
>
> > (3) Parallelize house keeping (for example vacuums) of the database. I
> > think they are going to call this processes or something slated for the
> > next version?
> >
> > (4) Replication
> >
> > (5) Referential Integritity cleanups
> >
> > (6) EXOTIC FEATURES: crossdb
>
> I fail to see how threads are required for any of these. They could
> just as well be done with a separate process(es) in the current model.
>
Oh, I didn't realize the conversation was about what threads was
"required" for completing. My mistake ... *cough* *cough*
--
//========================================================\\
|| D. Hageman <dhageman(at)dracken(dot)com> ||
\\========================================================//
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-02-07 23:32:50 | Re: JOINs ... how I hate them ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-02-07 22:41:32 | Re: Threaded PosgreSQL server |