Re: Parallell Optimizer - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Parallell Optimizer
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqR4mtZH+Xxbq5WsMLtNXKWg_rJg8iSgWQc97+93fiEMmA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallell Optimizer  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Parallell Optimizer  (Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>)
List pgsql-hackers



On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 7 June 2013 20:23, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> As for other databases, I suspect that ones that have parallel execution
> are probably doing it with a thread model not a process model.

Separate processes are more common because it covers the general case
where query execution is spread across multiple nodes. Threads don't
work across nodes and parallel queries predate (working) threading
models.
Indeed. Parallelism based on processes would be more convenient for master-master
type of applications. Even if no master-master feature is implemented directly in core,
 at least a parallelism infrastructure based on processes could be used for this purpose.
--
Michael

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE ... ALTER CONSTRAINT
Next
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallell Optimizer