Re: [HACKERS] Threads

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Brian E Gallew <geek+(at)cmu(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Threads
Date: 1999-08-04 14:26:07
Message-ID: 37A84D7F.B8C58D0A@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Redirection will end up costing us a whole 'nother TCP connection
> build/destroy which can be disregarded for non-trivial queries, but
> still may prove too much (depending upon query patterns). On the
> other hand, it would probably be easier to code and have better
> throughput than funneling all data through the postmaster. On the
> gripping hand, a postmaster that mediated all transactions could also
> implement QoS style controls, or throttle connections taking an unfair
> share of the available bandwidth.
> In any event, this could also be the start of a naming service. It
> should be relatively easy, with either method, to have the postmaster
> handle connections to databases (not just tables, mind you) on other
> machines.

Starting to sound suspiciously like the Corba work I've been doing on
my day job.

We're using ACE/TAO for it's realtime and QoS features, but other
implementations are probably much lower footprint wrt installation and
use. I suppose we'd want a C implementation; the ones I've been using
are all C++...

- Thomas

--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adriaan Joubert 1999-08-04 14:49:47 Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: btree scan list trashed ??
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-08-04 14:08:00 Re: [HACKERS] Threads