From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded
In-reply-to: <31cc6df9-53fe-3cd9-af5b-ac0d801163f4@iki.fi>
References: <31cc6df9-53fe-3cd9-af5b-ac0d801163f4@iki.fi>
Comments: In-reply-to Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
	message dated "Mon, 05 Jun 2023 17:51:57 +0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <4178103.1685978307.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2023 11:18:27 -0400
Message-ID: <4178104.1685978307@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4178104.1685978307%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> writes:
> I spoke with some folks at PGCon about making PostgreSQL multi-threaded, 
> so that the whole server runs in a single process, with multiple 
> threads. It has been discussed many times in the past, last thread on 
> pgsql-hackers was back in 2017 when Konstantin made some experiments [0].

> I feel that there is now pretty strong consensus that it would be a good 
> thing, more so than before. Lots of work to get there, and lots of 
> details to be hashed out, but no objections to the idea at a high level.

> The purpose of this email is to make that silent consensus explicit. If 
> you have objections to switching from the current multi-process 
> architecture to a single-process, multi-threaded architecture, please 
> speak up.

For the record, I think this will be a disaster.  There is far too much
code that will get broken, largely silently, and much of it is not
under our control.

			regards, tom lane