It is possible de make a cluster with postgresql
?
michael
There are several replication projects underway
that can provide varying levels of functionality - by utilizing one of these,
you could have a 'cluster', but it would not be the same functionality as you
would get from a comercial cluster such as Oracle...
see the /contrib folder for severa
Mike Mascari wrote:
> Here's the history, FWIW:
>
> I implemented COMMENT ON for just TABLES and COLUMNS, like Oracle.
>
> Bruce requested it for all objects
>
> I extended for all objects - including databases (my bad) ;-)
>
> Peter E. was rewriting psql and wanted the COMMENT on operators to
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
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.sour
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 co
Hello Thomas,
Wednesday, June 5, 2002, 7:02:33 PM, you wrote:
TL> ...
>> 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
>> stabili
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 June 2002 21:00
> To: Mike Mascari
> Cc: Rod Taylor; Dave Page; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Operator Comments
>
>
> Mike Mascari wrote:
> > Here's the history, FWIW:
> >
> > I implemented
Dave Page wrote:
> The problem that I found was that if you update the comment on an
> operator (a trivial task in pgAdmin which is what I was coding at the
> time) it updates the comment on the underlying function - not so good as
> the new comment may no longer make sense when read from the pers
...
> 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.
I would think that we w
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Lockhart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 3:03 PM
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Igor Kovalenko; PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for a Win32 port
>
>
> ...
> > Good summary. I think we would support both t
Iavor Raytchev wrote:
> I want on Monday to proceed and to merge at least the code we produced in
> our company with the latest pgaccess that can be found and with the code of
> Chris and Bartus.
>
> And to see if and how we (Chris, Bartus, Boyan, Teo and myself, plus all
> active people who send
Jason Tishler wrote:
> Dan,
>
> The following is to help keep the archives accurate and should not be
> construed as an argument against the native Win32 port.
>
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 10:02:14PM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote:
> > And Cygwin requires a license for commercial use.
> > http://cygwin
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
Mark kirkwood wrote:
> Is it worth looking at how the mysql crowd did their win32 port -
> (or is that intrinsically a _bad_thing_ to do..) ?
>
> (I am guessing that is why their sources requires c++ )
Absolutely worth seeing how MySQL does it. They use cygwin, and I
assume they aren't see
Yeah: ST is designed for network apps, and its for network bound apps that
you
gain the most performance - but by using it to allow
a child process to hold multiple connections and accept/return data to
those connections simultaneously, I forsaw a potential performance
improvement...
*shrug* Most
On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 16:33, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, I think I am now caught up on the Win32/cygwin discussion, and would
> like to make some remarks.
>
> First, are we doing enough to support the Win32 platform? I think the
> answer is clearly "no". There are 3-5 groups/companies working on
Dan,
The following is to help keep the archives accurate and should not be
construed as an argument against the native Win32 port.
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 10:02:14PM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote:
> And Cygwin requires a license for commercial use.
> http://cygwin.com/licensing.html
The above is not
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
...
> Notion:
> Have one version do both. Your server can fork(), and your sever can
> thread. It can fork() and thread, it can fork() or thread.
> That gives the best of all worlds. One client who has his attachments
> to a database all setup might want to do a bunch of similar queries.
> Henc
On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 18:50:46 -0400
"Jon Franz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
I've been having a lot of fun here at the SIGMOD annual conference,
attaching faces to names like Stonebraker, Hellerstein, Aoki,
Seltzer (if these do not ring a bell, you ain't read enough Postgres
source code lately). I felt I had to pass along this gem from Joe
Hellerstein, right after he obse
Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 18:50:46 -0400
> "Jon Franz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 libr
Hello Bruce,
Wednesday, June 5, 2002, 1:33:44 AM, you wrote:
BM> INSTALLER
BM> -
BM> We clearly need an installer that is zero-hassle for users. We need to
BM> decide on a direction for this.
I suggest Nullsoft install system
(http://www.nullsoft.com/free/nsis/). It's real good and ver
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
t
Here is a summary of the responses to my Win32 roadmap. I hope this
will allow further discussion.
---
INSTALLER
-
Cygwin Setup.exehttp://cygwin.com
Nullsofth
Igor Kovalenko wrote:
> I think SGI gets amazing performance because they have very good (efficient)
> synchronization 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
Problem:
Win2000 and Cygwin/postgresql-7.1 produce
"defunct" processes after each run which can ONLY be killed
by Win Task Manager. If you allow too many "defunct" processes
your database requests slow down and your number of connections
increases, i.e. if you
have 32 connections specified in y
28 matches
Mail list logo
