> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Tatsuo Ishii <is...@postgresql.org> wrote: > >> > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> On 7 June 2013 20:23, Tom Lane <t...@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. >> >> As long as "true" synchronous replication is not implemented in core, >> I am not sure there's a value for parallel execution spreading across >> multile nodes because of the delay of data update propagation. >> > True, but we cannot drop the possibility to have such features in the future > either, so a process-based model is safer regarding the possible range of > features and applications we could gain with.
I wonder why "true" synchronous replication nor "eager replication" are not in the developer TODO list. If we want them in the future, they should be on it. -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
