Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Reasoning behind process instead of thread based

From: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reasoning behind process instead of thread based
Date: 2004-10-29 19:47:22
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general
nd02tsk(at)student(dot)hig(dot)se writes:
>>Two:  If a
>> single process in a multi-process application crashes, that process
>> alone dies.  The buffer is flushed, and all the other child processes
>> continue happily along.  In a multi-threaded environment, when one
>> thread dies, they all die.
> So this means that if a single connection thread dies in MySQL, all
> connections die?

Yes, that's right.

> Seems rather serious. I am doubtful that is how they have
> implemented it.

If it's a multithreaded application, then there is nothing to doubt
about the matter.  If any thread dies, the whole process croaks, and
there's no choice in the matter.  If a thread has been corrupted to
the point of crashing, then the entire process has been corrupted.
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
A VAX is virtually a computer, but not quite.

In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2004-10-29 20:21:00
Subject: Re: Recommended Procedure for Archiving Table Data
Previous:From: Chris BrowneDate: 2004-10-29 19:43:10
Subject: Re: The reasoning behind having several features outside of source?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group