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

Re: Porting to Native WindowsNT/2000

From: "Colin 't Hart" <cthart(at)yahoo(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Porting to Native WindowsNT/2000
Date: 2001-09-03 18:30:11
Message-ID: 9n0i5p$2207$ (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Ian Lance Taylor (& others) wrote:

> > This is true.  However, a process-pool architecture would benefit
> > on other platforms besides Windows.  Postgresql has been ported to the
> > HP3000 MPE/iX operating system, for example, which is POSIX-compliant,
> > has an awfully slow fork().
> On the other hand, POSIX-compliant systems generally are moving toward
> a faster and faster fork, as they should given the nature of POSIX
> programs.
> A process pool architecture for a system like Postgres would require
> very careful attention to memory usage, in order to be able to return
> swap space to the system or at least avoid using it.  Otherwise, I
> believe the different processes would fragment memory over time,
> decreasing system performance.  Process pools work best for systems
> with fixed memory usage.

What about a pre-forked model?

What about using the Apache Portable Runtime? The Apache & Postgres licenses
are compatible, are they not?



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: johan27Date: 2001-09-03 19:02:33
Subject: BIG problem !!:fatal 1:set user id user admin is not in eg shadow
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-09-03 18:22:03
Subject: Re: cannot detect too many clients

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group