Re:PostgreSQL reconsiders its process-based model
by masklinn on Tuesday June 20, 2023 @01:16AM
(#36400020)
> I don't buy this a priori.
You don’t have to buy anything, that’s been the result of every attempt so far and a big reason for their rejection. The latest effort only gained some traction because the backers also did optimisation work which compensated (and then was merged separately).
> Almost everybody who removed a gigantic lock
See that’s the issue with your response, you’re not actually reading the comment you’re replying to.
And the “almost” is a big tell.
> suddenly realizes that there was more contention than they thought and that atomizing it made performance improve.
There is no contention on the gil in single threaded workloads.
> Had Python bitten the bullet and removed the GIL back at Python 3.0
It would have taken several more years and been completely DOA.
You don’t have to buy anything, that’s been the result of every attempt so far and a big reason for their rejection. The latest effort only gained some traction because the backers also did optimisation work which compensated (and then was merged separately).
> Almost everybody who removed a gigantic lock
See that’s the issue with your response, you’re not actually reading the comment you’re replying to.
And the “almost” is a big tell.
> suddenly realizes that there was more contention than they thought and that atomizing it made performance improve.
There is no contention on the gil in single threaded workloads.
> Had Python bitten the bullet and removed the GIL back at Python 3.0
It would have taken several more years and been completely DOA.