Re: An idea for parallelizing COPY within one backend

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Cc: Postgresql-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: An idea for parallelizing COPY within one backend
Date: 2008-02-27 04:46:54
Message-ID: 13568.1204087614@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> ...
> Neither the "dealer", nor the "workers" would need access to the either
> the shared memory or the disk, thereby not messing with the "one backend
> is one transaction is one session" dogma.
> ...

Unfortunately, this idea has far too narrow a view of what a datatype
input function might do. Just for starters, consider "enum" input,
which certainly requires catalog access. We have also explicitly
acknowledged the idea that datatype I/O functions might try to store
typmod-related data in some special catalog somewhere.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-02-27 06:28:01 Re: Required make version
Previous Message Brendan Jurd 2008-02-27 03:41:30 Re: One more option for pg_dump...