> Hello together
>
> i've seen a lot of discussion about a native win32/OS2/BEOS port of
> PostgreSQL.
>
> During the last months i've ported PostgreSQL over to Novell NetWare
> and i've
> changed the code that I use pthreads instead of fork() now.
>
> I had a lot of work with the variables and cl
I think SGI gets amazing performance because they have very good (efficient)
synchronisation primitives on SGI. Some proprietary light-weight mutexes.
Using threaded or mixed model just by itself is not going to do a miracle.
Threads will save you some context switch time, but that will probably
t
I might be naive here, but would not proper threading model remove the need
for fork() altogether? On both Unix and Win32? Should not be too hard to
come up with abstraction which encapsulates POSIX, BeOS and Win32 threads...
I am not sure how universal POSIX threads are by now. Any important Unix
TECTED]>
To: "Igor Kovalenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Marc G.
Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKE
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Since our default behavior (at startup) is to have TCP sockets disabled,
> > how many OSs are there that don't support UD sockets?
>
> A quick look in the sources shows that we #undef HAVE_UNIX_SOCKETS for
> QNX, BeOS, and old cygwin versions ..
> "Igor Kovalenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What really need to be done is new abstraction layer which would cover
SysV
> > API, POSIX and whatever native APIs are better for BeOS/OS2/Win32. I
almost
> > did it last time...
>
> Yes. I just sent
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think that you should create a verbatim implementation of the SysV
> > shared memory API in native Win32. It may have to be a pgsysvshm.dll
> > or something like it, but I think it is the best possible approach.
>
> > Let me look at it, I may be able to have
It depends. QNX4 may be used with GCC, in which case it does have long long.
I am not sure if that combination will play along with Postgres, but it
should not be assumed impossible.
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Eisentraut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Thomas Lockhart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Igor Kovalenko
> > Sent: Friday, 22 March 2002 1:31 AM
> > To: Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: [HACKERS] bad performance on irix
> >
> >
>
No, I've been told it is not gonna be considered for 7.2x and I shall
wait till 7.3.
Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro wrote:
>
> > Makes me wonder... perhaps now someone will be convinced to take a look
> > at the POSIX IPC patch. On some platforms (not on Linux I am afraid)
> > POSIX mutexes might be
Okay. Anyway, the semaphores are apparently used for purposes other than
TAS. That can be made faster too, on platforms which support POSIX
mutexes (shared between processes).
"Robert E. Bruccoleri" wrote:
>
> Dear Igor,
>
> > I am confused to hell. I always thought MIPS does NOT have TAS
> > i
I am confused to hell. I always thought MIPS does NOT have TAS
instruction ;)
"Robert E. Bruccoleri" wrote:
>
> Dear Igor,
>
> Igor Kovalenko writes:
>
> > Makes me wonder... perhaps now someone will be convinced to take a look
> > at the POSIX IPC patch.
Makes me wonder... perhaps now someone will be convinced to take a look
at the POSIX IPC patch. On some platforms (not on Linux I am afraid)
POSIX mutexes might be quite a bit faster than SYSV semaphores.
Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro wrote:
>
> Hi all:
> again on performance, here is an extract fr
13 matches
Mail list logo
