| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes |
| Date: | 2003-09-26 16:27:09 |
| Message-ID: | 16617.1064593629@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> One solution is for me to continue with this in the Win32 CVS version
> until I have fork/exec() working on Unix, then test on Win32. I think
> that could be done in a few weeks, if not less.
> Another solution, already mentioned, is to use threads and TLS. This is
> what SRA's code uses. I know SRA wants to contribute that code back to
> the community, so I can ask them to see if they are ready to release it.
If you are willing to expend the effort, I think it would be worth the
time to pursue both approaches. We don't yet have enough info to decide
which one will be cleaner, so we need to push forward on both until we
can make a realistic comparison.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-26 16:35:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-26 16:26:38 | Re: pg_dump and REVOKE on function |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-26 16:35:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-26 16:15:16 | Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes |