From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru |
Cc: | pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com, dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com, hannuk(at)google(dot)com, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded |
Date: | 2023-06-14 07:01:33 |
Message-ID: | 20230614.160133.1540361929672513850.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Wed, 14 Jun 2023 08:46:05 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru> wrote in
> But I do not think that it is somehow related with using threads
> instead of process.
> The question whether to use private or shared cache is not directly
> related to threads vs. process choice.
Yeah, I unconsciously conflated the two things. We can use per-thread
cache on multithreading.
> Yes, threads makes implementation of shared cache much easier. But it
> can be also done using dynamic
> memory segments, Definitely shared cache has its pros and cons, first
> if all it requires sycnhronization
> which may have negative impact o performance.
True.
> I have made an attempt to combine both caches: use relatively small
> per-backend local cache
> and large shared cache.
> I wonder what people think about the idea to make backends less thick
> by using shared cache.
I remember of a relatively old thread about that.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4E72940DA2BF16479384A86D54D0988A567B9245%40G01JPEXMBKW04
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2023-06-14 07:06:05 | Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded |
Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2023-06-14 06:55:36 | Re: ERROR: wrong varnullingrels (b 3) (expected (b)) for Var 2/1 |