Re: Multithread Query Planner
От | Fred&Dani&Pandora |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Multithread Query Planner |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CACcJavBDpBbuu9aN1Vz5Jh+E+=mbjNgSqz_vqi4xp37mDb+uVg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Multithread Query Planner (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Ok, thanks.
Att,
Fred
2012/1/24 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Right. I think it makes more sense to try to get parallelism workingOn Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> I doubt it. Almost nothing in the backend is thread-safe. You can't
>> acquire a heavyweight lock, a lightweight lock, or a spinlock. You
>> can't do anything that might elog() or ereport(). None of those
>> things are reentrant.
>
> Not to mention palloc, another extremely fundamental and non-reentrant
> subsystem.
>
> Possibly we could work on making all that stuff re-entrant, but it would
> be a huge amount of work for a distant and uncertain payoff.
first with the infrastructure we have. Converting to use threading,
if we ever do it at all, should be something we view as a later
performance optimization. But I suspect we won't want to do it
anyway; I think there will be easier ways to get where we want to be.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: