Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded

On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 2:00 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> I'm also not quite convinced that there's no long-term use case for
> multi-process mode. Maybe you're right and there isn't, but that
> amounts to arguing that every extension in the world will be happy to
> run in a multi-threaded world rather than not. I don't know if I quite
> believe that. It also amounts to arguing that performance is going to
> be better for everyone in this new multi-threaded mode, and that it
> won't cause unforeseen problems for any significant numbers of users,
> and maybe those things are true, but I think we need to get this new
> system in place and get some real-world experience before we can judge
> these kinds of things. I agree that, in theory, it would be nice to
> get to a place where the multi-process mode is a dinosaur and that we
> can just rip it out ... but I don't share your confidence that we can
> get there in any short time period.
>

First, I am enjoying the activity of this thread. But my first question is
"to what end"?
Do I consider threads better? (yes... and no)

I do wonder if we could add better threading within any given
session/process to get a hybrid?
[maybe this gets us closer to solving some of the problems incrementally?]

If I could have anything (today)... I would prefer a Master-Master
Implementation leveraging some
of the ultra-fast server-server communication protocols to help sync
things. Then I wouldn't care.
I could avoid the O/S Overwhelm caused by excessive processes, via
spinning up machines.
[Unfortunately I know that PG leverages the filesystem cache, etc to such a
degree that communicating
from one master to another would require a really special architecture
there. And the N! communication lines].

Kirk...