On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 2:00 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm also not quite convinced that there's no long-term use case for > multi-process mode. Maybe you're right and there isn't, but that > amounts to arguing that every extension in the world will be happy to > run in a multi-threaded world rather than not. I don't know if I quite > believe that. It also amounts to arguing that performance is going to > be better for everyone in this new multi-threaded mode, and that it > won't cause unforeseen problems for any significant numbers of users, > and maybe those things are true, but I think we need to get this new > system in place and get some real-world experience before we can judge > these kinds of things. I agree that, in theory, it would be nice to > get to a place where the multi-process mode is a dinosaur and that we > can just rip it out ... but I don't share your confidence that we can > get there in any short time period. > First, I am enjoying the activity of this thread. But my first question is "to what end"? Do I consider threads better? (yes... and no) I do wonder if we could add better threading within any given session/process to get a hybrid? [maybe this gets us closer to solving some of the problems incrementally?] If I could have anything (today)... I would prefer a Master-Master Implementation leveraging some of the ultra-fast server-server communication protocols to help sync things. Then I wouldn't care. I could avoid the O/S Overwhelm caused by excessive processes, via spinning up machines. [Unfortunately I know that PG leverages the filesystem cache, etc to such a degree that communicating from one master to another would require a really special architecture there. And the N! communication lines]. Kirk...
