From: | Goran Thyni <goran(at)kirra(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Robinson <robinson(at)netrinsics(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] CORBA STATUS |
Date: | 1999-11-10 20:47:43 |
Message-ID: | 3829D9EF.AF03539C@kirra.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Robinson wrote:
> Goran Thyni <goran(at)kirra(dot)net> writes:
> >AFAICS, POA assumes a threaded server while
> >PgSQL uses a traditional forking model.
>
> This is not the case. The POA assumes a nestable, multiplexed call
> interface. The POA server can receive multiple requests from multiple
> clients (or even multiple simultaneous requests from one client), and,
> if single threaded, is allowed to simply queue them and service each
> request in natural order.
OK,
I went on hearsay, got confused by the code.
Thank you for clearifying.
But the issue remains,
if you fork in a connection handler (after accept())
you got two servers competing on both connections.
I outline a model for how CORBA could be implemented
without rewriting the whole server and make it optional
for platforms not supporting CORBA.
Attached below is a first attempt with sketchy pseudo-code.
I hope it is understandable.
regards,
--
-----------------
Göran Thyni
On quiet nights you can hear Windows NT reboot!
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
corba2.txt | text/plain | 388 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Stephens | 1999-11-10 23:37:38 | Re: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] CORBA STATUS |
Previous Message | Bernard Frankpitt | 1999-11-10 19:31:38 | Re: [HACKERS] Indent |