Subject: Re: PostgreSQL
To: Patrick Welche <email@example.com>
From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@NetBSD.org>
Date: 02/03/2006 10:17:20
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thursday, 2 February 2006 at 15:37:29 +0000, Patrick Welche wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 06:58:04PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>> * Neil Conway <firstname.lastname@example.org> [060201 18:49] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 00:49 +0000, email@example.com wrote:
>> But threads aren't always the best thing out there, the code gets
>> a lot more complicated and crash prone and you wind up sometimes
>> getting screwed because third party code isn't thread safe...
> Isn't your last paragraph the reason PostgreSQL sticks to processes?
I'd guess no. It might be a good reason to do so, but the real reason
is what I stated in a previous message: it was the only option at the
time. And "if it works, don't fix it".
> Companies A and B each have databases running from your server.
> Company A has written flaky procedures which segfault its backends.
> (some processes disappear) Company B doesn't care - its backends
> don't share any memory with them, all is well.
This is an issue, agreed. It doesn't seem to have bitten us (MySQL)
so far, though possibly I'm not completely informed.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----