Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-06-05T18:51:50Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2023-06-05 Mo 11:18, Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnaka@iki.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. > > If we were starting out today we would probably choose a threaded implementation. But moving to threaded now seems to me like a multi-year-multi-person project with the prospect of years to come chasing bugs and the prospect of fairly modest advantages. The risk to reward doesn't look great. That's my initial reaction. I could be convinced otherwise. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com