| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, 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: | 2023-06-08 14:17:04 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaUVjy4vhpRWxLXDGKCURepbY89KGBwjsg5qtwTzgPjWw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 5:45 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> 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.
How hard have you thought about memory leaks as a failure mode? Or
file descriptor leaks?
Right now, a process needs to release all of its shared resources
before exiting, or trigger a crash-and-restart cycle. But it doesn't
need to release any process-local resources, because the OS will take
care of that. But that wouldn't be true any more, and that seems like
it might require fixing quite a few things.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2023-06-08 14:21:55 | Re: Cleaning up nbtree after logical decoding on standby work |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-06-08 14:15:02 | Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded |