Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hannu Krosing
Subject Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded
Date
Msg-id CAMT0RQR1kAEhHmiy2SfhqbDvoq3mrezcENM=3vozL5cpkNDPOA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded  (Hannu Krosing <hannuk@google.com>)
Responses Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 11:54 AM Hannu Krosing <hannuk@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 11:37 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2023-06-05 13:40:13 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> > > 2. While I wouldn't want to necessarily discourage a moonshot effort, I
> > > would ask if developer time could be better spent on tackling some of the
> > > other problems around vertical scalability? Per some PGCon discussions,
> > > there's still room for improvement in how PostgreSQL can best utilize
> > > resources available very large "commodity" machines (a 448-core / 24TB RAM
> > > instance comes to mind).
> >
> > I think we're starting to hit quite a few limits related to the process model,
> > particularly on bigger machines. The overhead of cross-process context
> > switches is inherently higher than switching between threads in the same
> > process - and my suspicion is that that overhead will continue to
> > increase. Once you have a significant number of connections we end up spending
> > a *lot* of time in TLB misses, and that's inherent to the process model,
> > because you can't share the TLB across processes.
>
>
> This part was touched in the "AMA with a Linux Kernale Hacker"
> Unconference session where he mentioned that the had proposed a
> 'mshare' syscall for this.

Also, the *static* huge pages already let you solve this problem now
by sharing the page tables


Cheers
Hannu



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Daniel Verite"
Date:
Subject: Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: Do we want a hashset type?