DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.br;
	h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
	b=m2+Yt8WNUZBgwHhy8ZVjBFXyMGO5pAZeEfnABMRw6q5bg4BsyS7jkYU325QE/5B4FZZGlSpLUjQ1VHYJjesDaFQ1BsujwqlJFzcTipRBij3rBgTlh8rxUQ+qOOfJo7BymDn6tpef3/3SG4EYHV+uiW8bF0I2w5K6FDRmUYAXurQ=
	;
Message-ID: <20050727011712.64392.qmail@web52709.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:17:12 -0300 (ART)
From: Halley Pacheco de Oliveira <halleypo@yahoo.com.br>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.3 Documentation - Chapter 23. Monitoring Database
	Activity
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@sigpipe.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20050726194901.GA56282@isis.sigpipe.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

The surprise is:

Oracle - MTS -  Multi-Threaded-Server - MTS allows many user processes to share very few server
processes. Without MTS, each user process requires its own dedicated server process; a new server
process is created for each client requesting a connection. A dedicated server process remains
associated to the user process for the remainder of the connection. With MTS many user processes
connect to a dispatcher process. The dispatcher routes client requests to the next available
shared server process. The advantage of MTS is that system overhead is reduced, so the number of
users that can be supported is increased.

Contrasting with this in PostgreSQL a new process is forked just to connect to another database.
The PostgreSQL behavior seems similar to old Oracle versions.

Regards,
Halley
--- Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@sigpipe.cz> escreveu:

> 
>     Well, there's nothing that would make this model required, but it
>     surely helps keep things like entropy at reasonable levels.
>     IOW, this behavior allows for greater stability through simpler code
>     and limited process lifetime.
> 
>     But maybe I'm not understanding the point you're trying to make.
>     To make things a bit clearer: what is it that you find so disturbing
>     or surprising in the current PostgreSQL behavior? Why did you expect
>     it reusing the same process, and what benefits do you expect (or
>     preferably, have experimentally gained) from the alternative?
> 


_______________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. 
Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/