| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded |
| Date: | 2023-06-07 21:45:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20230607214502.cm5vhj3ipntdoskf@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-06-05 20:15:56 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yes, sorry, critical sections is what I was remembering. My question is
> whether all unexpected backend exits should be treated as critical
> sections?
Yes.
People have argued that the process model is more robust. But it turns out
that we have to crash-restart for just about any "bad failure" anyway. It used
to be (a long time ago) that we didn't, but that was just broken.
There are some advantages in debuggability, because it's a *tad* harder for a
bug in one process to cause another to crash, if less state is shared. But
that's by far outweighed by most debugging / validation tools not
understanding the multi-processes-with-shared-shmem model.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-06-07 21:48:22 | Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded |
| Previous Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2023-06-07 21:39:54 | Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded |