| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Fred&Dani&Pandora&Aquiles" <fred(at)nti(dot)ufop(dot)br>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallell Optimizer |
| Date: | 2013-06-11 00:37:59 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqR4mtZH+Xxbq5WsMLtNXKWg_rJg8iSgWQc97+93fiEMmA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 7 June 2013 20:23, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> > As for other databases, I suspect that ones that have parallel execution
> > are probably doing it with a thread model not a process model.
>
> Separate processes are more common because it covers the general case
> where query execution is spread across multiple nodes. Threads don't
> work across nodes and parallel queries predate (working) threading
> models.
>
Indeed. Parallelism based on processes would be more convenient for
master-master
type of applications. Even if no master-master feature is implemented
directly in core,
at least a parallelism infrastructure based on processes could be used for
this purpose.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2013-06-11 00:45:28 | Re: Parallell Optimizer |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2013-06-11 00:27:18 | Re: ALTER TABLE ... ALTER CONSTRAINT |