> 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. -- 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
