Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?
Date: 2003-04-13 05:20:26
Message-ID: 8765pjht2d.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> So? You're going to be paying those costs *anyway*, because most of the
> process context swaps will be between the application server and the
> database.

Separating the database and application onto dedicated machines is normally
the first major optimization busy sites do when they discover that having the
two on the same machine never scales well.

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2003-04-13 06:11:53 CVSup binary RPMs for Red Hat 9 available
Previous Message Kevin Brown 2003-04-13 04:31:28 Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?