Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeffrey Baker <jwbaker(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch
Date: 2008-09-29 12:39:24
Message-ID: 10177.1222691964@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, I'll bet the restore code doesn't realize that this can't run in
>> parallel with index creation on either table ...

> Yeah. Of course, it's never needed to bother with stuff like that till now.

> The very simple fix is probably to run a separate parallel cycle just
> for FKs, after the index creation.

Um, FKs could conflict with each other too, so that by itself isn't
gonna fix anything.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zdenek Kotala 2008-09-29 12:42:04 Re: [REVIEW] Prototype: In-place upgrade v02
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-09-29 12:33:16 Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery