Re: are there plans for a threaded alternative to multiple daemons?

From: <jks(at)p1(dot)selectacast(dot)net>
To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: Clayton Vernon <cvernon(at)enron(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: are there plans for a threaded alternative to multiple daemons?
Date: 2001-05-03 22:47:48
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.10.10105031844320.15305-100000@p1.selectacast.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

That is exactly what we need for postgres. In particular JDBC could use
the ability to have a new connection to a backed that doesn't require a
new backed to use cursors for scrollable resultsets so big selects don't
have to download everything before results can be used. There are many
other reasons for having multiple connections to one backed process,
mainly to do with different transactions not screwing each other up.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Clayton Vernon wrote:
>
> > I was wondering what the plans were for PostgreSQL to convert to the
> > one process multithreaded approach, as Apache, Interbase and others
> > are doing?
>
> there has been talk about doing some threads actions inside of a
> process, but, if I recall my read of Apache2, they are still doing
> multi-process, with threading inside of each process ...
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lieven Van Acker 2001-05-03 22:53:03 Re: View permissions in 7.1
Previous Message Steve Wolfe 2001-05-03 22:27:25 Re: Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql