| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com>, Postgresql-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: An idea for parallelizing COPY within one backend |
| Date: | 2008-02-27 17:11:32 |
| Message-ID: | 29945.1204132292@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> Plus, I'd see this as a kind of testbed for gently introducing
> parallelism into postgres backends (especially thinking about sorting
> here).
This thinking is exactly what makes me scream loudly and run in the
other direction. I don't want threads introduced into the backend,
whether "gently" or otherwise. The portability and reliability hits
that we'll take are too daunting. Threads that invoke user-defined
code (as anything involved with datatype-specific operations must)
are especially fearsome, as there is precisely 0 chance of that code
being thread-safe.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2008-02-27 17:47:26 | Re: An idea for parallelizing COPY within one backend |
| Previous Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2008-02-27 17:03:34 | Re: An idea for parallelizing COPY within one backend |