Sharing page tables with msharefs

Posted Jul 16, 2022 6:20 UTC (Sat) by mokki (subscriber, #33200)
In reply to: Sharing page tables with msharefs by clugstj
Parent article: Sharing page tables with msharefs

Doesn't PostgreSQL also use fork per client model?

I was under the impression that thread per client model is faster, but less safe. In process per client model a bug in one client cannot corrupt memory in the process, outside the explicitly shared memory area.

Sharing page tables with msharefs

Posted Jul 16, 2022 9:44 UTC (Sat) by edeloget (subscriber, #88392) [Link] (2 responses)

> Doesn't PostgreSQL also use fork per client model?

Yes, but then, correct system architecture tells you to limit the number of clients to something that the machine can handle :)

If you cannot have 1500 clients on a signe machine, then maybe you shouldn't have 1500 clients on the same machine :)

Sharing page tables with msharefs

Posted Jul 16, 2022 9:58 UTC (Sat) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link] (1 responses)

I've seen articles about database designs that, instead of routing things through a frontend web API or whatever, expose Postgres users and use its security rules model directly. I imagine that'd cause some scaling headaches if done to a medium-large website...

Sharing page tables with msharefs

Posted Jul 16, 2022 18:32 UTC (Sat) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]

If your database server can handle the load in terms of number of connections, and your application can afford to be tightly coupled to the database design, and the connection latency is typical of a local area network, it is probably almost always faster to connect directly rather than running through extra tiers that mostly shuffle things around en route. In so many cases that is not possible any more though, even old school web applications multiplex database connections across concurrent users (and often do a outstanding job of it, but that is another story).