Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Threads

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Serguei Mokhov" <mokhov(at)cs(dot)concordia(dot)ca>
Cc: "Greg Copeland" <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>,"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>,"PGHackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Threads
Date: 2003-01-04 01:34:02
Message-ID: 23763.1041644042@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Serguei Mokhov" <mokhov(at)cs(dot)concordia(dot)ca> writes:
>>> (1) One thread screws up, the whole process dies. In a 
>>> multiple process application this is not too much of an issue.

> (1) is an issue only for user-level threads.

Uh, what other kind of thread have you got in mind here?

I suppose the lack-of-cross-thread-protection issue would go away if
our objective was only to use threads for internal parallelism in each
backend instance (ie, you still have one process per connection, but
internally it would use multiple threads to process subqueries in
parallel).

Of course that gives up the hope of faster connection startup that has
always been touted as a major reason to want Postgres to be threaded...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

  • Re: Threads at 2003-01-03 22:54:20 from Serguei Mokhov

Responses

  • Re: Threads at 2003-01-04 02:11:17 from Greg Copeland

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-01-04 01:36:42
Subject: Re: Upgrading rant.
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-01-04 01:33:47
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Password Cracker

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group