Re: famous multi-process architectures - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

From Ron Mayer
Subject Re: famous multi-process architectures
Date
Msg-id 48C71587.3040409@cheapcomplexdevices.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to famous multi-process architectures  (Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>)
Responses Re: famous multi-process architectures  (Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>)
List pgsql-advocacy
Markus Wanner wrote:
>   "Google got inspired by Postgres: they use the same
>    multi-process architecture for their browser as Postgres

Surely apache was (and optionally still is) a more famous multi-process architecture.

But is it really a big deal?

Isn't the only difference is that in a multi-process architecture memory
is protected from other processes unless you explicitly mark it shared while
in a multi-threaded architecture memory's shared unless you explicitly mark it
thread-local?

That some OS architectures implement one or the other of these poorly -- poor
performance of either threads or processes; or poor protection of thread-local
storage -- but that seems like an OS quality-of-implementation detail.   Other
differences (which thread/process gets a signal, how are file-handled shared)
seem to be minor details that vary from OS to OS anyway.

pgsql-advocacy by date:

Previous
From: Naz
Date:
Subject: Re: Binaries vs Source
Next
From: "Michael Alan Brewer"
Date:
Subject: PgUS Memberships and Board Nominations Now Open