| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded |
| Date: | 2023-06-05 17:43:17 |
| Message-ID: | ec653779-9852-bc4c-2d09-4877fc6c5d77@iki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/06/2023 13:32, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Would this help with oom killer in linux?
Hmm, I guess the OOM killer would better understand what Postgres is
doing, it's not very smart about accounting shared memory. You still
wouldn't want the OOM killer to kill Postgres, though, so I think you'd
still want to disable it in production systems.
> Isn't it true that pgbouncer provides a lot of the same benefits?
I guess there is some overlap, although I don't really think of it that
way. Firstly, pgbouncer has its own set of problems. Secondly, switching
to threads would not make connection poolers obsolete. Maybe in the
distant future, Postgres could handle thousands of connections with
ease, and threads would make that easier to achieve that, but that would
need a lot of more work.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Verite | 2023-06-05 17:43:26 | Re: pg_collation.collversion for C.UTF-8 |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2023-06-05 17:40:13 | Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded |