Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>
>>On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 13:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>>SRA's Windows port is up to 7.3.4, and I think they just released
>>>version 1.1, so that is going fine --- and I have the source code to
>>>use in our native Win32 port, just not the threading stuff.
>
>
>>And if I've paid attention, the threading bits are what SRA used to get
>>around the fork/exec issues?
>
>
> BTW, I've been wondering lately if we'd not be better off to look at
> using threading in the Windows port, if it'd help us get around the
> fork/exec data transfer problem. I'm not sure that it would, mind you,
> but if it would give an answer it might be a lot less painful than
> solving the data transfer problem directly.
>
> Our main objections to threading in the past have always been lack of
> portability and loss of robustness. Portability isn't an issue for a
> Windows-only solution, and I'm not too concerned about the other either,
> since I'll never think that Windows would be a place to run a production
> server anyway.
Assuming windows port would be built out of same code tree as that of unix
builds....
Considering this could be a configure time option, you mean to say that even on
Unix we could get threaded postgresql which would not require any shared buffers
but instead operate upon local shared buffers only?
Of course that would remain an option only. Old behaviour of process/shared
memory will still be there..
Do I understand this correctly? If abstraction work is going to be done, adding
thread-model specific could be just another layer.
So we have..
- Windows thread model
- pthreads on unix model
- Process+shared buffers model
And postgresql could work in either of the modes depending upon platform.
That would be good news. I am sure local buffers would be lot cheaper than
shared buffers.
Shridhar