I have updated the developers FAQ item 1.9 to address this:
http://developer.postgresql.org/readtext.php?src/FAQ/FAQ_DEV.html+Developers-FAQ
---
Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 01:51:28AM -0400
This in many ways is a bogus argument in that 1) postgresql runs on more
then just Linux and 2) amount of memmory that can be addressed by a
process is tunable up to the point that it reaches a hardware limitation.
It also should be noted that when a process reaches such a size that it
better
"Steve Wolfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On the recurring debate of threading vs. forking, I was giving it a fwe
> thoughts a few days ago, particularly with concern to Linux's memory model.
>
> On IA32 platforms with over 4 gigs of memory, any one process can only
> "see" up to 3 or 4 gig
"D. Hageman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This in many ways is a bogus argument in that 1) postgresql runs on more
> then just Linux and 2) amount of memmory that can be addressed by a
> process is tunable up to the point that it reaches a hardware limitation.
1) The OP specifically asked abou
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 18 Oct 2002 at 18:10, Ulrich Neumann wrote:
>
> > I'm still VERY interested in giving those changes back to the
> > community, but i think that my changes are still not wanted.
Okay, can you submit such changes in pieces / steps? For instance,
Anuradha Ratnaweera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let me explain my posting which started this `thread':
> - The developer's FAQ section 1.9 explains why PostgreSQL doesn't use
> threads (and many times it has been discussed on the list).
> - The TODO list has an item `Experiment with multi-thr
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:28:38AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 22:20, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Simple: respond to 'em all with a one-line answer: "convince us why we
> >> should use it". The burden of proof always seems to fall on the wr
On 18 Oct 2002 at 18:10, Ulrich Neumann wrote:
> Marc,
>
> not only the global variables are a problem. PostgreSQL doesn't clean
> up
> all the memory before a process terminates and you must deal with
> signals between threads.
OK, first of all let me say this. I am interested in seeing postgre
Marc,
not only the global variables are a problem. PostgreSQL doesn't clean
up
all the memory before a process terminates and you must deal with
signals between threads.
I've modified PostgreSQL that it is completely thread based and nearly
clean
with allocating/deallocating memory and I'm using
On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 09:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 22:20, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Simple: respond to 'em all with a one-line answer: "convince us why we
> >> should use it". The burden of proof always seems to fall on the wrong
> >> end
Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 22:20, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Simple: respond to 'em all with a one-line answer: "convince us why we
> >> should use it". The burden of proof always seems to fall on the wrong
> >> end in these discussions.
>
> >
Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 22:20, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simple: respond to 'em all with a one-line answer: "convince us why we
>> should use it". The burden of proof always seems to fall on the wrong
>> end in these discussions.
> ... Now, it seems, that
> peop
On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 22:20, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Let me add one more thing on this "thread". This is one email in a long
> > list of "Oh, gee, you aren't using that wizz-bang new
> > sync/thread/aio/raid/raw feature" discussion where someone shows up and
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 01:25:23AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> >
> > > ... what I want to know is whether multithreading is likely to get
> > > into in postgresql, say somewhere in 8.x, or even in 9.x?
> >
> > It ma
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let me add one more thing on this "thread". This is one email in a long
> list of "Oh, gee, you aren't using that wizz-bang new
> sync/thread/aio/raid/raw feature" discussion where someone shows up and
> wants to know why. Does anyone know how to addres
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> It may be optional some day, most likely for Win32 at first, but we see
> little value to it on most other platforms; of course, we may be wrong.
> I am also not sure if it is a big win on Apache either; I think the
> jury is still out on that one, hen
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 02:08:21PM -0400, Curtis Faith wrote:
>
> 2) Including the pros and cons of the feature/implementation and how close
> the group is to deciding whether something would be worth doing. - I can
> also do this.
The pros and cons of many such features have been discussed over
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 23:08, Curtis Faith wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I tried to prepare as best I could before bringing anything forward to
> HACKERS. In particular, I read the last two years of archives with anything
> to do with the WAL log and looked at the current code, read the TODOs, re
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Let me add one more thing on this "thread". This is one email in a long
> list of "Oh, gee, you aren't using that wizz-bang new
> sync/thread/aio/raid/raw feature" discussion where someone shows up and
> wants to know why. Does anyone know how to address these, efficiently
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 16:37, Robert Treat wrote:
> I'm pretty sure BSD allows you to relicense derived code as you see fit.
> However, any derived project that was released GPL would have a hell of
> a time ever getting put back into the main source (short of
> relicensing).
Exactly. This is on
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 04:34, Justin Clift wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
>
> > > Nope. To keep the `original' code licence as it is and to release the
> > > changes GPL? Is the question sane at first place?
> >
> > That would be a pretty big mess, I think. People
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 01:27, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> Well, slow adoption rate is attributed to 'apache 1.3.x is good enough for us'
> syndrome, as far as I can see from news. Once linux distros start shipping with
> apache 2.x series *only*, the upgrade cycle will start rolling, I guess.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> > Nope. To keep the `original' code licence as it is and to release the
> > changes GPL? Is the question sane at first place?
>
> That would be a pretty big mess, I think. People would add your patch
> to our BSD code and it would be GPL. I
On 16 Oct 2002 at 15:40, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > In that case, I wonder if it is worth folking a new project to add
> > threading support to the backend? Of course, keeping in sync with the
> > original would be lot of work.
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/mtpgsql
Last discussion that happ
On 16 Oct 2002 at 1:25, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> > Thanks, Bruce. But what I want to know is whether multithreading is
> > likely to get into in postgresql, say somewhere in 8.x, or even in 9.x?
> > (as they did with Apache). Are there any plans to do so, or is postgr
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 01:51:28AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Let me add one more thing on this "thread". This is one email in a
> long list of "Oh, gee, you aren't using that wizz-bang new
> sync/thread/aio/raid/raw feature" discussion where someone shows up
> and wants to know why. Does
Let me add one more thing on this "thread". This is one email in a long
list of "Oh, gee, you aren't using that wizz-bang new
sync/thread/aio/raid/raw feature" discussion where someone shows up and
wants to know why. Does anyone know how to address these, efficiently?
If we discuss it, it ends
Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:40:47PM +1000, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> >
> > > And a minor question is wheter it is legal to keep the _changes_ in such
> > > a project GPL?
> >
> > Do you mean 'relicence the forked copy'?
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:40:47PM +1000, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
>
> > And a minor question is wheter it is legal to keep the _changes_ in such
> > a project GPL?
>
> Do you mean 'relicence the forked copy'?
Nope. To keep the `original' code licen
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 01:25:23AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> >
> > > ... what I want to know is whether multithreading is likely to get
> > > into in postgresql, say somewhere in 8.x, or even in 9.x?
> >
> > It
Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 01:25:23AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> >
> > > ... what I want to know is whether multithreading is likely to get
> > > into in postgresql, say somewhere in 8.x, or even in 9.x?
> >
> > It may be optional some d
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 01:25:23AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
>
> > ... what I want to know is whether multithreading is likely to get
> > into in postgresql, say somewhere in 8.x, or even in 9.x?
>
> It may be optional some day, most likely for Win32 at first, but w
Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 12:59:57AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there any plans to make postgresql multithreading?
> >
> > We don't think it is needed, except perhaps for Win32 and Solaris, which
> > have slow process crea
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
>
> Is there any plans to make postgresql multithreading?
>
> Thanks in advance (and also for all who commented to my question
> regarding replication.)
>
> Anuradha
>
> NB: please don't open fire to declare war on whether multithreading i
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 12:59:57AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> >
> > Is there any plans to make postgresql multithreading?
>
> We don't think it is needed, except perhaps for Win32 and Solaris, which
> have slow process creation times.
Thanks, Bruce. But what I w
Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
>
> Is there any plans to make postgresql multithreading?
>
> Thanks in advance (and also for all who commented to my question
> regarding replication.)
>
> Anuradha
>
> NB: please don't open fire to declare war on whether multithreading is
> needed for PGSql o
Is there any plans to make postgresql multithreading?
Thanks in advance (and also for all who commented to my question
regarding replication.)
Anuradha
NB: please don't open fire to declare war on whether multithreading is
needed for PGSql or not. I am just expecting a black and white
37 matches
Mail list logo
