Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] Does Storage Manager support >2GB tables?
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] Does Storage Manager support >2GB tables? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 199803122309.SAA10556@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] Does Storage Manager support >2GB tables? (dg@illustra.com (David Gould)) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Threading is a bit like raw devices. It sounds like a really good idea, > particularly with M$ banging the "NT, now with threads" drum, but in real > life there are some very good reasons not to thread. Particularly with an > extensible product like Postgres where J-Random routine gets loaded at > runtime. In a threaded system, J-Random routine needs to be pretty well > perfect or the whole system comes down. In a process based system, unless > it trashes something in the shared memory, only the one connection instance > needs to come down. My experience with Illustra says that this is fairly > important. Yes, the threading topic has come up before, and I have never considered it a big win. We want to remove the exec() from the startup, so we just do a fork. Will save 0.001 seconds of startup. That is a very easy win for us. I hadn't considered the synchonization problems with palloc/pfree, and that could be a real problem. -- Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 + If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w) + Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: