Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] Does Storage Manager support >2GB tables? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] Does Storage Manager support >2GB tables?
Date
Msg-id 199803122309.SAA10556@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] Does Storage Manager support >2GB tables?  (dg@illustra.com (David Gould))
List 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)

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: ocie@paracel.com
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] Does Storage Manager support >2GB tables?
Next
From: Kyungsoo Jeong
Date:
Subject: ...