| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fork()-safety, thread-safety |
| Date: | 2017-10-06 00:15:41 |
| Message-ID: | 5872.1507248941@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-10-06 07:59:40 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> The only thing that gets me excited about a threaded postgres is the
>> ability to have a PL/Java, PL/Mono etc that don't suck. We could do
>> some really cool things that just aren't practical right now.
> Faster parallelism with a lot less reinventing the wheel. Easier backend
> / session separation. Shared caches.
What you guys are talking about here is a threaded backend, which is a
whole different matter from replacing the client-side threading that Nico
was looking at. That would surely offer far higher rewards, but the costs
to get there are likewise orders of magnitude greater.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-10-06 00:25:01 | Re: fork()-safety, thread-safety |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-10-06 00:06:55 | Re: fork()-safety, thread-safety |