On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 12:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 19:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The key problem is that pg_restore is broken:
> > The key capability here is being able to split the dump into multiple
> > pieces. The equivalent capability on restore is *not* required, because
> > once the dump has been split the restore never needs to be.
> This argument is nonsense.
> The typical usage of this capability, IMHO, will be
Arghh! That's not my stated use case!?#*!
I want to dump tables separately for performance reasons. There are
documented tests showing 100% gains using this method. There is no gain
adding this to pg_restore. There is a gain to be had - parallelising
index creation, but this patch doesn't provide parallelisation.
Anyway, clearly time for me to stop and have a break.
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2008-07-26 16:59:10|
|Subject: Re: pg_dump(all) library|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-07-26 16:46:48|
|Subject: Re: pg_dump(all) library |
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-07-26 17:43:06|
|Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |
|Previous:||From: Stephen Frost||Date: 2008-07-26 16:43:55|
|Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance|