public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Roman Neuhauser <[email protected]>
To: Halley Pacheco de Oliveira <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.3 Documentation - Chapter 23. Monitoring Database Activity
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 03:33:38 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

# [email protected] / 2005-07-26 22:17:12 -0300:
> --- Roman Neuhauser <[email protected]> escreveu:
> >     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?
> 
> 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.

    I came to PostgreSQL from MySQL, which is multithreaded, and found
    PostgreSQL absolutely UNsurprising in this aspect. There's quite
    a few populare programs that behave similarly.
 
> 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.

    So what? Is this a troll?

-- 
How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb?
You don't know, man.  You don't KNOW.
Cause you weren't THERE.             http://bash.org/?255991

view thread (11+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.3 Documentation - Chapter 23. Monitoring Database Activity
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox