| From: | Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | AMatveev(at)bitec(dot)ru, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: One process per session lack of sharing |
| Date: | 2016-07-17 13:29:59 |
| Message-ID: | CAGBW59cdfocRGYTTzri7mOKKORqhFku16RSGsBjt6sXYp575=A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> Lots more could be shared, too. Cached plans, for example.
>
But the fact that PostgreSQL has transactional DDL complicates things like
a shared plan cache and shared PL/pgSQL execution trees. Those things are
much easier in a trivial database implementation, where an ALTER TABLE is
just trampling over a running transaction.
Regards, Jan
--
Jan Wieck
Senior Postgres Architect
http://pgblog.wi3ck.info
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-07-17 13:44:10 | Re: One process per session lack of sharing |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-07-17 12:55:33 | Re: rethinking dense_alloc (HashJoin) as a memory context |