From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Serge Fonville <serge(dot)fonville(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Abdul Rahman <abr_ora(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Multiple postgres.exe On Processes |
Date: | 2009-02-12 19:19:55 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10902121119q460f5748q94c04920b4a0ac73@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Serge Fonville
<serge(dot)fonville(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I could not find the reason as to why this way has been chosen by the
> developers
Because separate processes are much more robust than multiple threads.
And on Linux, the difference in performance is minimal. Note some
OSes like Windows, and to a lesser extent, Solaris, have significant
overhead for forking processes, and run multi-threaded apps much
faster.
Since any real db in a heavy lifting situation is probably using a
connection pooler, then the cost of startup of a new process isn't a
big deal, because they're not getting started all the time anymore.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | SHARMILA JOTHIRAJAH | 2009-02-12 19:32:10 | Re: COPy command question |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-02-12 19:05:25 | Re: Killing OIDs |