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 199803131449.JAA12924@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
List pgsql-hackers
> 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.

I was wrong here.  Removing exec() will save 0.01 seconds, not 0.001
seconds.  Typical backend startup and a single query is 0.08 seconds.
Removal of exec() will take this down to 0.07 seconds.

--
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: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: PL/PgSQL discussion
Next
From: "Thomas G. Lockhart"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Keyword