X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDCC89DCAA9 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:19:58 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05103-07 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:19:56 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from linda-1.paradise.net.nz (bm-1a.paradise.net.nz [203.96.152.180]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59A09DCAB3 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:19:55 -0400 (AST) Received: from smtp-1.paradise.net.nz (tclsnelb1-src-1.paradise.net.nz [203.96.152.172]) by linda-1.paradise.net.nz (Paradise.net.nz) with ESMTP id <0IQP00FMG8146C@linda-1.paradise.net.nz> for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:19:53 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (218-101-29-74.dsl.clear.net.nz [218.101.29.74]) by smtp-1.paradise.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4422C7F97A; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:19:51 +1300 (NZDT) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:19:50 +1300 From: Mark Kirkwood Subject: Re: ice-broker scan thread In-reply-to: <29795.1133236913@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: Tom Lane Cc: Gavin Sherry , Qingqing Zhou , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Message-id: <438BD6E6.1000107@paradise.net.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20051106) References: <29795.1133236913@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.166 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.166] X-Spam-Score: 0.166 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/1454 X-Sequence-Number: 76736 Tom Lane wrote: > Gavin Sherry writes: > >>I haven't had time to prototype whether we can easily implement async IO > > > Just as with any suggestion to depend on threads, you are going to have > to show results that border on astounding to have any chance of getting > this in. Otherwise the portability issues are just going to make it not > worth the trouble. Do these ideas require threads in principle? ISTM that there could be (additional) process(es) waiting to perform pre-fetching or async io, and we could use the usual IPC machinary to talk between them... cheers Mark