On Mon February 6 2006 05:17, Mark Woodward wrote:
> I posted some source to a shared memory sort of thing to the group, as
> well as to you, I believe.
Indeed, and it looks rather interesting. I'll have a look through it when I
have a chance...
So, after more discussion and experimentation, the possible methods in order
of +elegance/-difficulty/-complexity are:
=1. OSSP supported shared mem, possibly with a pg memory context or Mark's
shared memory manager.
=1. Separate application which the postgres backends talk to over tcp (which
actually turns out to be quite a clean way of doing it).
3. Storing rules in db and reloading them each time (which turns out to be a
utter bastard to do).
4. Shared memory with my own memory manager.
I am *probably* going to go for the separate network application, as I
believe this is easy and relatively clean, as the required messages should be
fairly straightforward. Each postgres backend opens a connection to the
single separate "rules-server" which sends back a serious of commands
(probably SQL), before the connection is closed again.
If this is Clearly Insane - please let me know!
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2006-02-06 13:49:13|
|Subject: Re: slow information schema with thausand users, seq.scan pg_authid|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2006-02-06 13:40:37|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Logging statements and parameter values|