From: | Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded |
Date: | 2023-06-08 17:07:48 |
Message-ID: | CAMT0RQSVMhk3FVDED8GxrKM35dj3z3Zx6TrSV4cZRTrof3xxdg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I discovered this thread from a Twitter post "PostgreSQL will finally
be rewritten in Rust" :)
On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 5:18 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
> > I spoke with some folks at PGCon about making PostgreSQL multi-threaded,
> > so that the whole server runs in a single process, with multiple
> > threads. It has been discussed many times in the past, last thread on
> > pgsql-hackers was back in 2017 when Konstantin made some experiments [0].
>
> > I feel that there is now pretty strong consensus that it would be a good
> > thing, more so than before. Lots of work to get there, and lots of
> > details to be hashed out, but no objections to the idea at a high level.
>
> > The purpose of this email is to make that silent consensus explicit. If
> > you have objections to switching from the current multi-process
> > architecture to a single-process, multi-threaded architecture, please
> > speak up.
>
> For the record, I think this will be a disaster. There is far too much
> code that will get broken, largely silently, and much of it is not
> under our control.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2023-06-08 17:31:32 | Re: Named Prepared statement problems and possible solutions |
Previous Message | Ilya Anfimov | 2023-06-08 17:02:46 | Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded |