Re: [HACKERS] More CORBA and PostgreSQL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas G. Lockhart
Subject Re: [HACKERS] More CORBA and PostgreSQL
Date
Msg-id 364C4711.3321AE7F@alumni.caltech.edu
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] More CORBA and PostgreSQL  (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] More CORBA and PostgreSQL  (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>)
Re: [HACKERS] More CORBA and PostgreSQL  (Michael Meskes <meskes@usa.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
>         I don't know what is implemented, but check out:
>         http://www.vsb.cs.uni-frankfurt.de/~mico
>         They "claim" a completely 2.2 Corba implementation...

If someone were choosing an ORB, they perhaps could look at whatever the
Gnome project chose (either mico or ORBit, can't remember which). Also,
they didn't consider ILU because of licensing considerations, but the
license changed very recently and I think would now be a strong
candidate...

> > ... the PostgreSQL backend
> > doesn't seem ready for it.  In particular, it doesn't appear to be 
> > thread safe.  It may not even be reentrant, from what I can tell.  
> > And, if a backend process is not punctual about reading cache 
> > synchronization messages out of the IPC queue, it appears that 
> > excessive cache invalidation would hurt performance.

The PG backend is neither reentrant nor threadsafe, and isn't likely to
become so soon (several/many places where global variables are used,
etc).

However, with the existing "forked model", there is a separate backend
for each client, so (if I understand things a bit) the trick will be
figuring out how to call a single routine which will give access to a
client (as happens now) but without handing off through a socket/IP
connection.
                        - Tom


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David Ben-Yaacov"
Date:
Subject: High-level of inserts makes database drop core
Next
From: "Thomas G. Lockhart"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] still Query Limits to 8K ?