From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 00:25:01 |
Message-ID: | 9EBA3DD9-AB84-4873-B304-A3FA38E24CA6@anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On October 5, 2017 5:15:41 PM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>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.
No disagreement there. Don't really see much need for it client side though.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-10-06 01:19:54 | Re: fork()-safety, thread-safety |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-10-06 00:15:41 | Re: fork()-safety, thread-safety |