Re: Porting to Native WindowsNT/2000
От | Colin 't Hart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Porting to Native WindowsNT/2000 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9n0i5p$2207$1@news.tht.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Porting to Native WindowsNT/2000 (Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Ian Lance Taylor (& others) wrote: > > This is true. However, a process-pool architecture would benefit Postgres > > on other platforms besides Windows. Postgresql has been ported to the > > HP3000 MPE/iX operating system, for example, which is POSIX-compliant, but > > has an awfully slow fork(). > > On the other hand, POSIX-compliant systems generally are moving toward > a faster and faster fork, as they should given the nature of POSIX > programs. > > A process pool architecture for a system like Postgres would require > very careful attention to memory usage, in order to be able to return > swap space to the system or at least avoid using it. Otherwise, I > believe the different processes would fragment memory over time, > decreasing system performance. Process pools work best for systems > with fixed memory usage. What about a pre-forked model? What about using the Apache Portable Runtime? The Apache & Postgres licenses are compatible, are they not? Cheers, Colin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: