Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> BTW, I've been wondering lately if we'd not be better off to look at
>> using threading in the Windows port, if it'd help us get around the
>> fork/exec data transfer problem. I'm not sure that it would, mind you,
>> but if it would give an answer it might be a lot less painful than
>> solving the data transfer problem directly.
>>
>
> I am sure you are correct. The whole Windows API is more multi-thread
> friendly than multi-process friendly, and operates far more
> efficiently that way, as I understand it. There is also some potential
> benefit on some *nix systems, where thread creation is far less costly
> than forking, or at least this used to be the case last time I looked
> at it.
>
>>
>> Our main objections to threading in the past have always been lack of
>> portability and loss of robustness. Portability isn't an issue for a
>> Windows-only solution, and I'm not too concerned about the other either,
>> since I'll never think that Windows would be a place to run a production
>> server anyway.
>>
>>
>>
> Not that I like Windows all that much, but using it for a server is
> becoming more defensible as an option. As for portability, what *nix
> is there these days that doesn't have some sort of lightweight thread
> support?
>
> Maybe the relevant parts of the system need to be abstracted out and
> threading generally made a build time option (on by default for
> Windows, off by default otherwise, maybe?)
This seems to be the best option.
Whether a specific *ix application really benefits from threads or
suffers from this, should be evaluated on each platform. Having this
option is certainly advantageous.
BTW, this would lower the problems with memory over-commit: no forking,
no spare mem allocation needed, right?
Regards,
Andreas
