-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:53:34 -0800
"Trevor Talbot" <quension@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/07, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 07:29 -0700, Scott Ribe wrote:
> > > > Yes, very much so. Windows lacks the fork() concept, which is
> > > > what makes PostgreSQL much slower there.
> I mean, I can understand NT having bottlenecks in various areas
> compared to Unix, but this "threads are specially optimized" thing is
> seeming a bit overblown. Just how often do you see threads from a
> single process get contiguous access to the CPU?
I thought it was more about the cost to fork() a process in win32?
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHTazMATb/zqfZUUQRAtpgAJwNXh9tyO0J/KSYnlzB5HoTiru/3wCfQeDy
5cZ+OIZmAUMPmuflVfRP11Q=
=4j6q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
