| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded |
| Date: | 2023-06-08 18:48:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20230608184848.4ejjqjeeicgbnbzb@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-06-08 17:55:57 +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> While I agree that "sharing page tables across processes" is useful,
> it looks like it'd be much more effort to correctly implement for e.g.
> DSM than implementing threading.
> Konstantin's diff is "only" 20.1k lines [0] added and/or modified,
> which is a lot, but it's manageable (13k+ of which are from files that
> were auto-generated and then committed, likely accidentally).
Honestly, I don't think this patch is in a good enough state to allow a
realistic estimation of the overall work. Making global variables TLS is the
*easy* part. Redesigning postmaster, definining how to deal with extension
libraries, extension compatibility, developing tools to make developing a
threaded postgres feasible, dealing with freeing session lifetime memory
allocations that previously were freed via process exit, making the change
realistically reviewable, portability are all much harder.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-06-08 18:54:44 | Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-06-08 18:41:00 | Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded |