| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | AMatveev(at)bitec(dot)ru |
| Cc: | 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 07:23:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAMsr+YEjbvpWqpvu7751gwjP1rY2bHWYRiRQPM8pEq3eGso4nQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 15 July 2016 at 20:54, <AMatveev(at)bitec(dot)ru> wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> > but parallel processing doesn't requires threading support - see
> PostgreSQL 9.6 features.
>
> To share dynamic execution code between threads much more easy(If
> sharing this code between process is possible).
> There is many other interaction techniques between threads which is
> absence between process.
>
>
We have shared memory.
How do you think the buffer cache works?
Lots more could be shared, too. Cached plans, for example.
It's possible. You just have to change how you think about it, and you
might not be able to do it within the framework of the JVM. So it's quite
possibly not worth it for you. Nonetheless, don't assume it can't be done
just because you can't do it the way you're used to thinking of doing it.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-07-17 07:28:26 | Re: Version number for pg_control |
| Previous Message | Jun Cheol Gim | 2016-07-17 07:22:43 | [PROPOSAL] timestamp informations to pg_stat_statements |