Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 4 Jun 1999 06:45:55 +0200
From:      Eivind Eklund <eivind@freebsd.org>
To:        The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Cc:        chat@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Sun Spurs Innovation in Supercomputing
Message-ID:  <19990604064554.B80950@bitbox.follo.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9906040139120.413-100000@thelab.hub.org>; from The Hermit Hacker on Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 01:40:36AM -0300
References:  <19990604054634.K77195@bitbox.follo.net> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9906040139120.413-100000@thelab.hub.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 01:40:36AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Eivind Eklund wrote:
> > Replacing the lock calls with calls to an API for a distributed lock
> > manager.  This allowed the use of PostgreSQL in high-availability
> > clusters, with two machines sharing the same physical "disk"
> > (actually, RAID array).
> 
> Not quick sure how this applies (if it even does), but v6.5 of PostgreSQL
> has had major changes done to it on its 'concurrency' code, to improve
> locking...but I'm suspecting that its not 'client' locking you are talking
> about here?

No, it is not.  I'm talking about using the same physical postgresql
database with two concurrent postgresql processes running against it
(the two different processes are on different machines, but the
database is on shared physical media).  Am I being clear now?

Eivind.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990604064554.B80950>