Scott Marlowe wrote:
> There are some issues that the whole idea of a win32 port should bring up.
> One of them is whether or not postgresql should be rewritten as a
> multi-threaded app.
Please, don't add this one to it.
I'm all for the native Windows port, yes, but I've discussed
the multi-thread questions for days at Great Bridge, then
again with my new employer, with people on shows and whatnot.
Anything in the whole backend is designed with a multi-
process model in mind. You'll not do that in any reasonable
amount of time.
> If postgresql will never be rewritten as a multi-threaded app, then
> performance under Windows is likely to ALWAYS be slow, since that
> multi-thread is the preferred model for good performance on W32. note
> that many Unixes prefer multi-threaded models as well (Solaris comes to
> mind) so there's the possibility that a multi-threaded postgresql could
> enjoy better performance on more than just windows.
As soon as you switch to a multi-threaded middle tier, that
uses connection pools and avoids constant process creation, I
think you don't have much of a problem any more. The high
connect/disconnect ratio, acceptable for threaded databases,
is what kills PostgreSQL.
> If postgresql IS going to eventually be multi-threaded, then the whole
> win32 port should probably be delayed until then, since it would solve
> many of the issues of fork() versus createprocess().
If multi-threading is the plan, then there is light at the
end of the tunnel ... the upcoming train...
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
