From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Threads vs Processes (was: NuSphere and PostgreSQL for window s) |
Date: | 2003-09-25 15:00:18 |
Message-ID: | 9297.1064502018@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> writes:
>> How are you dealing with the issue of wanting some static variables to
>> be per-thread and others not?
> To be perfectly honest, I'm still trying to familiarize myself with the code
> sufficiently well so that I can tell which variables need to be per-thread
> and which are shared (and, in turn, which of these need to be protected from
> concurrent access).
Well, the first-order approximation would be to duplicate the current
fork semantics: *all* static variables are per-thread, and should be
copied from the parent thread at thread creation. If there is some
reasonably non-invasive way to do that, we'd have a long leg up on the
problem.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tim McAuley | 2003-09-25 15:12:50 | Re: sequence's plpgsql |
Previous Message | Claudio Natoli | 2003-09-25 14:47:23 | Re: Threads vs Processes (was: NuSphere and PostgreSQL for window |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-09-25 15:21:59 | Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes |
Previous Message | Claudio Natoli | 2003-09-25 14:47:23 | Re: Threads vs Processes (was: NuSphere and PostgreSQL for window |