From: | Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Steve Wolfe" <nw(at)codon(dot)com> |
Cc: | "PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Postgresql and multithreading |
Date: | 2002-10-21 15:27:19 |
Message-ID: | m365vvu814.fsf@varsoon.wireboard.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Steve Wolfe" <nw(at)codon(dot)com> writes:
> On the recurring debate of threading vs. forking, I was giving it a fwe
> thoughts a few days ago, particularly with concern to Linux's memory model.
>
> On IA32 platforms with over 4 gigs of memory, any one process can only
> "see" up to 3 or 4 gigs of that. Having each postmaster fork off as a new
> process obviously would allow a person to utilize very copious quantities of
> memory, assuming that (a) they were dealing with concurrent PG sessions, and
> (b) PG had reason to use the memory.
>
> I'm not entirely clear on threading in Linux - would it provide the same
> benefits, or would it suddenly lock you into a 3-gig memory space?
Linux threads are basically processes that share the same VM space, so
you'd be limited to 3GB or whatever, since that's what a VM space can
"see".
-Doug
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-21 15:29:22 | Re: Default setting of NAMEDATALEN |
Previous Message | Olivier PRENANT | 2002-10-21 15:22:59 | Re: Please help |