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

Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes

From: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
To: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes
Date: 2003-09-26 15:43:27
Message-ID: 303E00EBDD07B943924382E153890E5434A9E3@cuthbert.rcsinc.local (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>We can simply create a registry key that would contain shared memory id
from 
>where a child process should get the variable values.

Instead of a registry key value would it not be better to dispatch a
message?

FWIW, (and INAH) I think you are correct about the threads vs. process
issue.  The fork/exec issue is solvable.  The switch to threads could
bring in all kinds of unforeseen issues.

Also, the performance penalty of processes is greatly overstated.
Postgres is not a web server and seeing the running processes in your
process manager has a lot of administrative benefits (the technical
issues of fork/exec notwithstanding).  You can see cpu load, run time,
kernel times, etc. without any extra software, just like in unix.

Merlin


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Andreas PflugDate: 2003-09-26 15:50:47
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes
Previous:From: Shridhar DaithankarDate: 2003-09-26 14:58:00
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes

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