Re: Multithread Query Planner

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Frederico <zepfred(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Multithread Query Planner
Date: 2012-01-24 16:25:59
Message-ID: 6870.1327422359@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I doubt it. Almost nothing in the backend is thread-safe. You can't
> acquire a heavyweight lock, a lightweight lock, or a spinlock. You
> can't do anything that might elog() or ereport(). None of those
> things are reentrant.

Not to mention palloc, another extremely fundamental and non-reentrant
subsystem.

Possibly we could work on making all that stuff re-entrant, but it would
be a huge amount of work for a distant and uncertain payoff.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2012-01-24 16:29:04 Re: Multithread Query Planner
Previous Message Jaime Casanova 2012-01-24 16:24:08 Re: Measuring relation free space