Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Andres Freund
Тема
Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded
Дата
Msg-id
20230607214502.cm5vhj3ipntdoskf@awork3.anarazel.de
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>
Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>
Hi,

On 2023-06-05 20:15:56 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yes, sorry, critical sections is what I was remembering.  My question is
> whether all unexpected backend exits should be treated as critical
> sections?

Yes.

People have argued that the process model is more robust. But it turns out
that we have to crash-restart for just about any "bad failure" anyway. It used
to be (a long time ago) that we didn't, but that was just broken.

There are some advantages in debuggability, because it's a *tad* harder for a
bug in one process to cause another to crash, if less state is shared. But
that's by far outweighed by most debugging / validation tools not
understanding the multi-processes-with-shared-shmem model.

Greetings,

Andres Freund


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Thomas Kellerer
Дата:
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
FAQ