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

Re: famous multi-process architectures

From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
To: Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: famous multi-process architectures
Date: 2008-09-10 00:32:07
Message-ID: 48C71587.3040409@cheapcomplexdevices.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
Markus Wanner wrote:
>   "Google got inspired by Postgres: they use the same
>    multi-process architecture for their browser as Postgres

Surely apache was (and optionally still is) a more famous multi-process architecture.

But is it really a big deal?

Isn't the only difference is that in a multi-process architecture memory
is protected from other processes unless you explicitly mark it shared while
in a multi-threaded architecture memory's shared unless you explicitly mark it
thread-local?

That some OS architectures implement one or the other of these poorly -- poor
performance of either threads or processes; or poor protection of thread-local
storage -- but that seems like an OS quality-of-implementation detail.   Other
differences (which thread/process gets a signal, how are file-handled shared)
seem to be minor details that vary from OS to OS anyway.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Michael Alan BrewerDate: 2008-09-10 04:34:27
Subject: PgUS Memberships and Board Nominations Now Open
Previous:From: NazDate: 2008-09-09 18:41:15
Subject: Re: Binaries vs Source

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