From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes |
Date: | 2003-09-26 15:43:27 |
Message-ID: | 303E00EBDD07B943924382E153890E5434A9E3@cuthbert.rcsinc.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>We can simply create a registry key that would contain shared memory id
from
>where a child process should get the variable values.
Instead of a registry key value would it not be better to dispatch a
message?
FWIW, (and INAH) I think you are correct about the threads vs. process
issue. The fork/exec issue is solvable. The switch to threads could
bring in all kinds of unforeseen issues.
Also, the performance penalty of processes is greatly overstated.
Postgres is not a web server and seeing the running processes in your
process manager has a lot of administrative benefits (the technical
issues of fork/exec notwithstanding). You can see cpu load, run time,
kernel times, etc. without any extra software, just like in unix.
Merlin
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2003-09-26 15:50:47 | Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes |
Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-09-26 14:58:00 | Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes |