> On 11 June 2013 01:45, 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. > > Please explain what you mean by the word "true" used here.
In another word, "eager replication". -- 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
