Re: PostgreSQL

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 <[email protected]> [060201 18:49] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 00:49 +0000, [email protected] 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.

Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFD4poIIubykFB6QiMRAiSgAJ43wLhr8zAbsDHBb39/XsBkUeIqnACfZJYH
+a3IwhGIb9DG7O2kZzoTn2A=
=0bKI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----