Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes

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

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  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