| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "A(dot)M(dot)" <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: An idea for parallelizing COPY within one backend |
| Date: | 2008-02-27 15:10:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20080227151002.GE5694@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
A.M. wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 2008, at 9:11 AM, Florian G. Pflug wrote:
>> The reason that I'd love some within-one-backend solution is that I'd
>> allow you to utilize more than one CPU for a restore within a *single*
>> transaction. This is something that a client-side solution won't be
>> able to deliver, unless major changes to the architecture of postgres
>> happen first...
>
> It seems like multiple backends should be able to take advantage of 2PC
> for transaction safety.
Yeah, but it wouldn't take advantage of, say, the hack to disable WAL
when the table was created in the same transaction.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-02-27 15:37:11 | Re: Proposal: wildcards in pg_service.conf |
| Previous Message | Brian Hurt | 2008-02-27 15:05:38 | Re: An idea for parallelizing COPY within one backend |