Re: Threads vs Processes

From: Myron Scott <mkscott(at)sacadia(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Threads vs Processes
Date: 2003-09-25 23:19:21
Message-ID: B1E52B14-EFAE-11D7-A904-00039301524A@sacadia.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32


On Thursday, September 25, 2003, at 10:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

> Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> writes:
>> One thing that can be done is to arrange all globals/statics in a
>> structure and make that structure thread local.
>
> That's about as far from "non-invasive" as I can imagine :-(
>
> I really, really want to avoid doing anything like the above, because
> it
> would force us to expose to the whole backend many data structures and
> state variables that are currently local to individual .c files. That
> complicates understanding and debugging tremendously, not to mention
> slowing the edit/compile/debug cycle when you are changing such
> structures.

Another option would be to create thread local hashtable or other lookup
structure to which you would register a structure for a particular .c
file
or group of files.

You could then define the structures you need locally without affecting
other parts of the codebase.

Myron Scott

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2003-09-25 23:31:43 ctid matching behavior changed?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-09-25 23:15:00 Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kurt at DBC 2003-09-26 03:52:11 Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-09-25 23:15:00 Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes