Re: [HACKERS] fork/exec for backend
От | Tom |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] fork/exec for backend |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.BSF.3.95q.980124145035.19914D-100000@misery.sdf.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] fork/exec for backend (Goran Thyni <goran@bildbasen.se>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] fork/exec for backend
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 24 Jan 1998, Goran Thyni wrote: > On 24 Jan 1998, Goran Thyni wrote: > > > Fork on modern unices (linux and (a think) *BSD) cost > > almost nothing (in time and memory) thanks to COW (copy-on-write). > > Exec in expensive as it breaks COW. > > Not so. Modern Unixs will share executable address space between > processes. So if you fork and exec 10 identical programs, they will share > most address space. > > 1. Code is probably not shared between postmaster and postgres > processes. A backend is execed for every connection. All the backends will share code space. > 2. Some inits may be done once (by postmaster) and not repeated > by every child. Not relevant. I'm only concerned with the children. > 3. (and most important) > With no exec COW is in action, meaning: > data pages in shared until changed. > > COW is the key to how Linux can fork faster than most unices > starts a new thread. :-) COW is old news. Perhaps you can find some old SCO systems that don't do COW :) > Again, this only applies to "modern" systems, but FreeBSD definitely has > this behaviour. > > I don't know if *BSD has COW, but if should think so. I'm not speaking just about COW, but about being able share code between separately execed processes. > best regards, > -- > --------------------------------------------- > G�ran Thyni, sysadm, JMS Bildbasen, Kiruna Tom
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: