Re: Multiple postgres.exe On Processes

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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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