Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch

From: Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
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: 2008-09-26 21:21:34
Message-ID: 20080926142134.5e40ffcb@jd-laptop (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:10:44 -0400
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:

> Yes, there are several funny things going on, including some stuff
> with dependencies. I'll have a new patch tomorrow with luck. Thanks
> for testing.

O.k. I took at look at the patch itself and although I don't understand
all of it there were a couple of red flags to me:

+ if (ropt->create)
+ 		die_horribly(AH,modulename,
+ 					 "parallel restore is
incompatible with --create\n");
+ 

This seems like an odd limitation. In my mind, the schema would not be
restored in parallel. The schema before data would restore as a single
thread. Even the largest schemas would only take minutes (if that).
Thus something like --create should never be a problem.

I also noticed you check if we have zlib? Is it even possible to use
the c format without it? (that would be new to me).

I noticed this line:


+ 	while((next_work_item = get_next_work_item(AH)) != NULL)
+ 	{
+ 		/* XXX need to improve this test in case there is no
table data */
+ 		/* need to test for indexes, FKs, PK, Unique, etc */
+ 		if(strcmp(next_work_item->desc,"TABLE DATA") == 0)
+ 			break;
+ 		(void) _restore_one_te(AH, next_work_item, ropt,
false);
+ 
+ 		next_work_item->prestored = true;
+ 
+ 		_reduce_dependencies(AH,next_work_item);
+ 	}


Intead of the TABLE DATA compare, perhaps it makes sense to back patch
pg_dump to have a line delimiter in the TOC? That way even if there is
no TABLE DATA there would be a delimiter that says:

--- BEGIN TABLE DATA
--- END TABLE DATA

Thus if nothing is there... nothing is there?

+ 			/* delay just long enough betweek forks to
give the catalog some
+ 			 * breathing space. Without this sleep I got 
+ 			 * "tuple concurrently updated" errors.
+ 			 */
+ 			pg_usleep(500000);
+ 			continue; /* in case the slots are not yet
full */
+ 		}

Could that be solved with a lock instead? Once the lock is released....

Anyway... just some thoughts. I apologize if I misunderstood the patch.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



> 
> cheers
> 
> andrew
> 


-- 
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ 
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2008-09-26 21:32:25
Subject: Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2008-09-26 21:10:44
Subject: Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group