Gnu Pth also supports AIO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nicolas Bazin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jon Franz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for a Win32 port
> Yes I proposed to use the GNU Pth library instead. It's an event > demultiplexer just like the sgi library, but has a posix thread interface. > This architecture is actually the more robust and also the more scalable. On > a single processor server, you don't have the multi-thread synchronization > and context switching overhead and you also take full advantage of > multi-processor servers when you create several processes. Plus you have > much less concern about global variables. > > Also for those concerned about the licence of this library here is an > abstract of it: > "The author places this library under the LGPL to make sure that it > can be used both commercially and non-commercially provided that > modifications to the code base are always donated back to the official > code base under the same license conditions. Please keep in mind that > especially using this library in code not staying under the GPL or > the LGPL _is_ allowed and that any taint or license creap into code > that uses the library is not the authors intention. It is just the > case that _including_ this library into the source tree of other > applications is a little bit more inconvinient because of the LGPL. > But it has to be this way for good reasons. And keep in mind that > inconvinient doesn't mean not allowed or even impossible." > > So it can be used in both commercial and non commercial project. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jon Franz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 8:50 AM > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for a Win32 port > > > > One note: SGI developers discovered they could get amazing performance > using > > as hybrid threaded and forked-process model with apache - we might want to > > look into this. They even have a library for network-communication > > utilizing thier 'state threads' model. Please see: > > > > http://state-threads.sourceforge.net/docs/st.html > > > > Thus, on platforms where it can be supported, we should keep in mind that > a > > hybrid multiprocess/multithreaded postgresql might be the fastest > > solution... > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Igor Kovalenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 4:05 PM > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for a Win32 port > > > > > > > Igor Kovalenko wrote: > > > > I might be naive here, but would not proper threading model remove the > > need > > > > for fork() altogether? On both Unix and Win32? Should not be too hard > to > > > > come up with abstraction which encapsulates POSIX, BeOS and Win32 > > threads... > > > > I am not sure how universal POSIX threads are by now. Any important > Unix > > > > platforms which don't support them yet? > > > > > > > > This has downside of letting any bug to kill the whole thing. On the > > bright > > > > side, performance should be better on some platforms (note however, > > Apache > > > > group still can't come up with implementation of threaded model which > > would > > > > provide better performance than forked or other models). The need to > > deal > > > > with possibility of 'alien' postmaster running along with orphaned > > backends > > > > would also be removed since there would be only one process. > > > > > > > > Issue of thread safety of code will come up undoubtedly and some > things > > will > > > > probably have to be revamped. But in long term this is probably best > way > > if > > > > you want to have efficient and uniform Unix AND Win32 implementations. > > > > > > > > I am not too familiar with Win32. Speaking about POSIX threads, it > would > > be > > > > something like a thread pool with low & high watermarks. Main thread > > would > > > > handle thread pool and hand over requests to worker threads (blocked > on > > > > condvar). How does that sound? > > > > > > Good summary. I think we would support both threaded and fork() > > > operation, and users can control which they prefer. For a web backend > > > where many sessions are a single query, people may want to give up the > > > stability of fork() and go with threads, even on Unix. > > > > > > -- > > > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 > > > + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue > > > + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania > 19026 > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
