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

Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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,

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-09-28 04:13:48
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2001-09-28 02:34:36
Subject: Re: Can't subscribe or get CVS

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