| From: | Gunnar Rønning <gunnar(at)polygnosis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "D(dot) Hageman" <dhageman(at)dracken(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal |
| Date: | 2001-09-28 03:03:00 |
| Message-ID: | m28zf0nhjv.fsf@smaug.polygnosis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com> wrote:
|
| Depends on what you mean. For scaling well with many connections and
| simultaneous queries, there's no reason IMHO that the current
| process-per-backend model won't do, assuming the locking issues are
| addressed.
Wouldn't a threading model allow you to share more data across different
connections ? I'm thinking in terms of introducing more cache functionality
to improve performance. What is shared memory used for today ?
--
Gunnar Rønning - gunnar(at)polygnosis(dot)com
Senior Consultant, Polygnosis AS, http://www.polygnosis.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-09-28 04:13:48 | Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2001-09-28 02:34:36 | Re: Can't subscribe or get CVS |