Re: Postgresql and multithreading

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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