X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE53D1B4E8 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:02:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [64.117.224.130]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07793-01 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:02:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D391CD1B523 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:02:01 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h8PE1o6c002684; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:01:50 -0400 (EDT) To: Shridhar Daithankar Cc: Robert Treat , Bruce Momjian , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] NuSphere and PostgreSQL for windows In-reply-to: <3F72F0CF.8050108@persistent.co.in> References: <200309241711.h8OHBMi20283@candle.pha.pa.us> <1064492591.25702.2084.camel@camel> <1794.1064494772@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3F72F0CF.8050108@persistent.co.in> Comments: In-reply-to Shridhar Daithankar message dated "Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:12:39 +0530" Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:01:50 -0400 Message-ID: <2683.1064498510@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200309/1226 X-Sequence-Number: 44238 Shridhar Daithankar writes: > 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? Only if we were prepared to support multiple, no doubt incompatible threading libraries, which is exactly what I wasn't volunteering us for. > I am sure local buffers would be lot cheaper than shared buffers. On what do you base that? It sounds like pure fantasy to me. RAM is RAM. regards, tom lane