On Wednesday, September 25, 2002, at 05:14 PM, Mark O'Donohue wrote:

> Nickolay Samofatov wrote:
>
>> [... snip ...]
>>
>>
>> Yes. There will be minimum contention when we will be adding
>> multithreading
>> to FB2.
>> I have a plan how to make CS version multithreaded. It includes usage
>> of
>> thread-local
>> memory pool. It will reduce thread contention to a very small amount.
>>
>>
> I like Nickolay's plan, and it mirrors my experience with converting
> single threaded apps to multithreaded apps. The approach usually
> minimises locking requirements, and works out fairly clean.
>
> [...]

I have been thinking about it too, and I think it merits further
investigation / discussion / prototyping. I am particularly concerned
about maintaining a lock manager design that is both efficient in a
single server process model, while allowing for a multi process (but
not necessarily 1 to 1) server model.

> So the best answer I see is going to be to try a few prototypes', see
> how they perform, and if a threaded classic does show real promises (as
> I think it will) and doesn't impact much on super, then we can slip it
> in as an upgrade.
>
> [...]

I agree that we should work on a prototype or two, but not until FB 1.5
has stabilized more. That, and a 1.01 release should be the most
important items right now.

-John