| From: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru |
| Cc: | pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com, dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com, hannuk(at)google(dot)com, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded |
| Date: | 2023-06-14 07:06:05 |
| Message-ID: | fb103da5-930b-f6cb-b6d2-ea77172c18b9@proxel.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/14/23 09:01, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Wed, 14 Jun 2023 08:46:05 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru> wrote in
>> But I do not think that it is somehow related with using threads
>> instead of process.
>> The question whether to use private or shared cache is not directly
>> related to threads vs. process choice.
>
> Yeah, I unconsciously conflated the two things. We can use per-thread
> cache on multithreading.
For sure, and we can drop the cache when dropping the memory context.
And in the first versions of an imagined threaded PostgreSQL I am sure
that is how things will work.
Then later someone will have to investigate which caches are worth
making shared and what the eviction/expiration strategy should be.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-06-14 07:16:50 | Re: pg_waldump: add test for coverage |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2023-06-14 07:01:33 | Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded |