Hello together
i've seen a lot of discussion about a native win32/OS2/BEOS port of
PostgreSQL.
During the last months i've ported PostgreSQL over to Novell NetWare
and i've
changed the code that I use pthreads instead of fork() now.
I had a lot of work with the variables and cleanup but
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
I think SGI gets amazing performance because they have very good (efficient)
synchronisation primitives on SGI. Some proprietary light-weight mutexes.
Using threaded or mixed model just by itself is not going to do a miracle.
Threads will save you some context switch time, but that will probably
Kovalenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]; mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Marc G.
Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports
Igor Kovalenko wrote:
It does not have to be anonymous. POSIX also
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since our default behavior (at startup) is to have TCP sockets disabled,
how many OSs are there that don't support UD sockets?
A quick look in the sources shows that we #undef HAVE_UNIX_SOCKETS for
QNX, BeOS, and old cygwin versions ... which are
It depends. QNX4 may be used with GCC, in which case it does have long long.
I am not sure if that combination will play along with Postgres, but it
should not be assumed impossible.
- Original Message -
From: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Thomas Lockhart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
is listening, we
could come up with a version suitable for you too...
-- igor
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Just remember that patches for 7.3 are being accepted at this very moment...
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Igor
No, I've been told it is not gonna be considered for 7.2x and I shall
wait till 7.3.
Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro wrote:
Makes me wonder... perhaps now someone will be convinced to take a look
at the POSIX IPC patch. On some platforms (not on Linux I am afraid)
POSIX mutexes might be quite
Makes me wonder... perhaps now someone will be convinced to take a look
at the POSIX IPC patch. On some platforms (not on Linux I am afraid)
POSIX mutexes might be quite a bit faster than SYSV semaphores.
Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro wrote:
Hi all:
again on performance, here is an extract from
I am confused to hell. I always thought MIPS does NOT have TAS
instruction ;)
Robert E. Bruccoleri wrote:
Dear Igor,
Igor Kovalenko writes:
Makes me wonder... perhaps now someone will be convinced to take a look
at the POSIX IPC patch. On some platforms (not on Linux I am afraid
Okay. Anyway, the semaphores are apparently used for purposes other than
TAS. That can be made faster too, on platforms which support POSIX
mutexes (shared between processes).
Robert E. Bruccoleri wrote:
Dear Igor,
I am confused to hell. I always thought MIPS does NOT have TAS
11 matches
Mail list logo
