Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> That's a heck of a stretch to say they were "inspired" by
Of course! It was supposed to be a marketing phrase. Try prove the
Or in other words: the inspiration certainly didn't come from MySQL.
> A multi-process model is hardly a unique development
> of Postgres, and it's not like we don't still have crash problems:
> "process exited abnormally and possibly corrupted shared memory"
> "terminating connection because of crash of another server process"
Huh? IMO these are good examples of how solid Postgres is: it detects
the problem, takes appropriate measures and continues to work. Just as
Google promises for Chrome. That certainly counts as "crash-safety",
especially for low values of "safety" as used in advertising.
Note that Google explicitly states that their rendering engine or other
parts of the browser might crash. But everybody is touting Chrome's
crash safety now... Obviously it's not about preventing crashes
completely, but being able to cope with them.
All I'm trying to say is that there might come up a new awareness of the
advantages of multi-process based designs (as opposed to threaded ones).
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Chris Browne||Date: 2008-09-04 16:38:19|
|Subject: Re: Ohio LinuxFest Booth (October 11)|
|Previous:||From: Greg Sabino Mullane||Date: 2008-09-04 14:17:14|
|Subject: Re: famous multi-process architectures|