From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded |
Date: | 2023-06-05 21:07:52 |
Message-ID: | CADUqk8UyyiLsVSFB+6LYwvRos123-333YT5d3eZ-eUBvXVyDBQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 8:18 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> For the record, I think this will be a disaster. There is far too much
> code that will get broken, largely silently, and much of it is not
> under our control.
>
While I've long been in favor of a multi-threaded implementation, now in my
old age, I tend to agree with Tom. I'd be interested in Konstantin's
thoughts (and PostgresPro's experience) of multi-threaded vs. internal
pooling with the current process-based model. I recall looking at and
playing with Konstantin's implementations of both, which were impressive.
Yes, the latter doesn't solve the same issues, but many real-world ones
where multi-threaded is argued. Personally, I think there would be not only
a significant amount of time spent dealing with in-the-field stability
regressions before a multi-threaded implementation matures, but it would
also increase the learning curve for anyone trying to start with internals
development.
--
Jonah H. Harris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Verite | 2023-06-05 22:07:58 | Inconsistent results with libc sorting on Windows |
Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2023-06-05 20:27:52 | Re: Mark a transaction uncommittable |